 Domestic Discipline (4 views) (Closed for Posting) Subscribe   
  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/1/2002 12:40 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 271)  
 
  295.1  
 
Happy New Year All!! 
Has anyone here heard of the concept of domestic discipline? Do you practice it in your homes? Do you consider it a choice, or if you practice it, do you consider it part of submission? 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/2/2002 5:37 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (2 of 271)  
 
  295.2 in reply to 295.1  
 
hmmmm...no answer?
  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/2/2002 7:21 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (3 of 271)  
 
  295.3 in reply to 295.2  
 
HUUUUUHHHHH????
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/3/2002 4:34 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (4 of 271)  
 
  295.4 in reply to 295.3  
 
Just asking hwat anyone thought 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/3/2002 11:24 am  
To:  ALL   (5 of 271)  
 
  295.5 in reply to 295.4  
 
I find this absolutely fascinating...dead silence. Not even the question "what is this", which leads me to believe on such a prolificly opinionated forum that people know, but are reticent to share. 
Any takers? 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/3/2002 7:39 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (6 of 271)  
 
  295.6 in reply to 295.5  
 
It may be because people don't understand what you mean by domestic discipline. I believe it means discipline at home! And yes , I do believe in it! Without discipline, comes chaos! There can be no harmony at home if the family doesn't respect the leader of the family! And God commands it! That should be the only reason the family needs to do it!
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/4/2002 6:13 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (7 of 271)  
 
  295.7 in reply to 295.6  
 
Hi 
Domestic discipline is the consensual use of corporal punishment of the wife by the husband within the confines of a Godly Christian marraige. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 8 of 271 was Deleted    



  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/4/2002 2:41 pm  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (9 of 271)  
 
  295.9 in reply to 295.7  
 
oohhhhh i HATE it when messages are deleted!!! *stamps her feet* I would rather read differing opinions or negative opinions than no opinions. 
If you deleted it, please repost. If you did not, please email me. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   1/4/2002 5:08 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (10 of 271)  
 
  295.10 in reply to 295.9  
 
Karen, 
I did not delete the message. Please refer any questions to teh person who did delete it. 


Alex 
www.stseraphim.org 
www.delphi.com/orthodoxway 

If you love Jesus, honk x40!
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/4/2002 5:52 pm  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (11 of 271)  
 
  295.11 in reply to 295.10  
 
That drives me mad. Could you repost or email me please at speechp@hotmail.com
  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/4/2002 11:29 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (12 of 271)  
 
  295.12 in reply to 295.7  
 
That's not Biblical! The only discipline is administered to children. There is no where in the Bible where permission is given to spank or slap your wife around.
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/4/2002 11:33 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (13 of 271)  
 
  295.13 in reply to 295.12  
 
By the way, any man that whips on his wife is number 1, not a man, number 2, a coward, and number 3, not worthy of having a wife, because apparently he's not Godly enough to deserve her!
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/5/2002 5:51 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (14 of 271)  
 
  295.14 in reply to 295.13  
 
Actually, it is not scriptural, but there is not scriptural injunction either. Many Christians practice this in a consensual way...in other words, she has agreed. There is no slapping around, only discipline in the same way you discipline your children. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/5/2002 12:41 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (15 of 271)  
 
  295.15 in reply to 295.14  
 
They are to show each other mutual respect. This is a Biblical command! I don't see any respect in putting your wife over your knee and spanking her! And since the Bible doesn't specifically mention or allow it, then one shouldn't read anything into it! That's why all doctrines in the denominations are so different now, because they read things into scripture that aren't there! That's like Pre-Trib Rapture! There is nothing Biblical to support it! But Satan knows preachers preach it; when that Pre-Trib time comes, he or one of his minions will show up claiming to be Christ, and steal, no telling, how many souls that will delusionily believe he is Jesus! That might also explain the "Great Apostasy" at the beginning the tribulation! 
You should be careful not to read into anything, that which isn't there!
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/5/2002 1:54 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (16 of 271)  
 
  295.16 in reply to 295.15  
 
Hi Pentitent,

 

I agree. Actually I have never even heard of such a thing as the husband treating the wife like a child, it sounds like the epitome of a bad relationship.

 

Now on to the Rapture of the Church if you would like to discuss the Rapture of the Church lets do it on one of the existing Rapture Topics located in the End Times Folder.

 

I value and respect your postings very much, and look forward to any discussion we might have on the topic as Im very much a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Christian.

 

All the Best,

God Bless You,

David

 

PS to all - an earlier post was deleted in this thread/topic by me. As the nature of this topic one of the posters chose the road most traveled (the low worldly road) and decided to comment about deviant sexual behavior.

 

Thanks to all who continue to Post according to the route less traveled but more rewarding, that is the High Heavenly Road!



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 5:50 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (17 of 271)  
 
  295.17 in reply to 295.15  
 
You are quite correct, there is nothing scriptural to suppport it, but also nothing scriptural AGAINST it. 
The bible also doesnt mention VCR's, TV, Flying to the moon, going to a movie, using a cell phone....but we do. 

I do happen to know lots of good Christian couples who use this....and the woman is NOT abused. I was just curious. 

karen 

ps...my, you use LOTs of exclamation points.

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 5:51 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (18 of 271)  
 
  295.18 in reply to 295.16  
 
David, 
Thank you. I was not looking for disrespectful replies...so that one needed to be deleted. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/6/2002 8:06 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (19 of 271)  
 
  295.19 in reply to 295.18  
 
Hi Karen,

 

Just curious is there some published material on this topic. Also the people that you know who practice it is it taught by their Pastor, is it a specific denomination teaching.

 

I am just curious as to what Bible verses they are using. Although the Bible does not specifically mention VCRs (The Bible does mention allude to TVs) the Bible does have much to say on relationships and the marriage relationship in particular.

 

The marriage relationship exists as a portrayal and example of our relationship with Christ Jesus and therefore it is important to have marriage actions mirror the relationship Jesus wants with us.

 

 

I know that there is a somewhat controversial child discipline program called Growing Kids Gods Way. http://www.gfi.org/java/history.jsp

 

Many Churches embrace the concept and teaching and some Churches are very against it.  I think Focus on the Family is not all that in favor of it. There is much material and discussion available on that topic.

 

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 8:14 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (20 of 271)  
 
  295.20 in reply to 295.19  
 
I am not as learned as some, but i will get the informaiton...ok? 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/6/2002 8:28 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (21 of 271)  
 
  295.21 in reply to 295.20  
 
Thanks,

 

Im glad you started this topic it is turning into a good thread.

 

Several people in the chat room have also commented on your topic as a good topic.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 11:23 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (22 of 271)  
 
  295.22 in reply to 295.21  
 
David, 
Here are some wise words...from some equally wise people. Please note that dd stands for domestic discipline. 

"Although there is no specific scripture instructing a man to spank his wife in order to fulfill his responsibility to "rule over" her as originally stated by God in Genesis 3:16 "Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." 

And the instruction of a man's responsibility given to him by God in Ephesians 5:23: "For the Husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 

The outcome of a husband's rule over his household in following Christ's example in His interraction with the church is to: 1. Love her, 2. Give himself up for her (personal sacrifice to benefit her in some way), 3. Sanctify her 4. Cleanse her with the word, 5. to present her in a glorious state (in all her glory), 6. With no spot or wrinkle or anything else of this sort (no this isn't talking about getting her face lifts or liposuction, although it's not an evil or vain thing to do and some women may want or need it ... grin) 7. to make sure she is holy and there is nothing anyone can blame her for, 8. love his wife as he loves his own body, 9. nourish her 10. cherish her. 

In other words, as much effort and detail as a man puts into the things that interest himself, or that will position him for the best advantage in everything in life, etc he should also be investing in the same manner and with the same effort and motivation towards his wife. (this is all found in Ephesians 5:25-29) 

With this background to a husband's responsibility as a foundation to build upon, God DOES NOT give specific instruction as to "how a man is to handle this responsibility in every instance". If you'll notice, He didn't give Adam ANY instruction that has been recorded in the scripture. 

Adam didn't even have "the word" (as we do) to sanctify and wash his wife by, but he did have personal contact with the "living word", God Himself, to consult. And even though they were kicked out of the Garden, there is still evidence that God spoke to them directly. 

However, there are scriptural instances of "choice" where people have used physical discipline as one way to keep themselves on a sanctified tract. 

Paul says that he found it necessary to "buffet" his body in order to run the race of a holy life. 1 Corinthians 9:27. In the margin of my Bible it uses the word "bruise" as a synonym for the word buffet. He has chosen to use physical discipline to make his body his slave in order to achieve a life that would always walk a blameless path. 

Another place where Paul speaks of his body being buffeted is in 2 Corinthians 12:7. It was a thorn in the flesh (some sort of nagging physical problem) generated by Satan but allowed by God (2 Cor 12:8,9), to keep him from the temptation and stubling block of gloating over any spiritual success he was seeing as a result of his ministry. 

Christ used in ONE instance a scourge of cords (hey wait a minute that's a flogger ... smile), John 2:14, 15. His motivation was NOT to beat people up ... it was because He wanted to purify what His Father's house was being used for: "Zeal for Thy House will consume me". (John 2:17, Psalm 69:9) 

Christ also received physical discipline on our behalf in several instances: 

1) In the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:44): Jesus prayed so fervently in agony regarding the cross that "His sweat became like drops of blood falling down to the ground." This is how Luke the physician describes it. 

2) Spit on and beaten with fists and slapped in the face: (Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65). This was done by members of the chief priests' council as well as some officers after questioning Him. 

3) Physical scorging, then the crown of thorns and beaten with a reed on the head (Matthew 27:29,30/Mark 15:15,16): Scripture records that Pilate scorged Him and then his soldiers/the whole Roman cohort, wove a crown of thorns and put it on His head. They put a reed (my Bible uses "staff" made of a reed as an explanation) in his hand (probably as a pretend ruling sceptor) and then took it back after and beat Him over the head with it (undoubtedly driving the thorns deeper). 

3) The cross & nails: (John 19:17, 18 & 20:24-27) He was forced to carry His own cross ... the instrument of His death and then hang on it and die (Other gospels record that He had some help along the way, but He was the primary cross-bearer). He also hung on it via nails piercing parts of His body. 

One last instance that I'll bring up of "ruling" is in Revelation 2:26,27). The example is a rod of iron and the position of authority is over ALL Nations. 

_______________ 

The point of all this is not to show how to beat one's wife or with what instrument to use or to justify Biblically DD. 

It is to show scripturally that God equates and utilizes physical discipline at times with a means to achieving spiritual benefit and accomplishing His permanent work on this earth. 

So if it's not "beneath" God Himself to resort to utilizing this choice at times, should we ourselves be "above" using it? If He sees that it's necessary, should we not follow His footsteps? 

Yes He uses many ways to keep us following Him ... primarily His Word, that is a given ... but He will also utilize and allow the use of physical discipline to accomplish His will. 

So if a Husband and wife has agreed to the use of DD in their home, it works, and especially if the wife had expressed the need for it ... I see no place where the Bible prohibits it and as I've stated DD is no addressed in scripture but the "Principle" of physical discipline IS." 


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 11:25 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (23 of 271)  
 
  295.23 in reply to 295.21  
 
Hi David, 
I know everyone seems to hate when a message truncates, but please bear with me if it does. I will try to split this up a bit .... 

Karen 

"Responsible Authority and the Discipline Issue 
Within the Context of a Christian Marriage 
There is a strange and interesting teaching that you may have heard of - what might be called the accountability and proactive love model of marriage. 
It is the controversial viewpoint that a loving Christian husband will use his authority and headship in a marriage in a very proactive, non-passive way to help his wife grow and mature. She is expected to submit, and he is to love and protect her - both following the roles that conservative Christians often at least in general agree upon. 
While that seems basically similar to a hard-line conservative Christian position, what makes this model unique is that the husband, in order to love, uses a limited form of physical discipline to keep his wife accountable. The wife often wants the relationship to be this way, feeling that the husband is showing practical love when he corrects her for sinful habits or other things. She wants to be submitted, and so obeying means allowing discipline. 
Discipline? This concept is not based on hitting, fighting, or BDSM, and in fact is supposed to help avoid improper male aggression of that sort. Instead, the husband has the right to (within certain parameters and safety issues) give his wife a spanking. Much like you would perhaps spank a wayward child, except that as an adult she is more free to choose her decisions (but not free to escape the consequences of sinful ones). 
Keep in mind that this is all in the context of a Christian Marriage. In fact, pastors are involved with this concept. It is hard to judge how common this is, given the fear of being laughed at or judged if others find out that this is your conviction. 
The accountability and proactive love model of marriage is certainly not mainstream. It is certainly controversial. There is at least one Christian forum on the topic on the web, but overall some are probably too embarrassed in this culture for the adherents to be to open about it. 
In this article, I am going to attempt to define several different viewpoints on this issue and lake a good solid look at the Bible to see what conclusions, if any, can be found. 
I especially want to make sure to uncover what CAN be given as official Biblical doctrine (doctrine: commands, sins, truths) and what can NOT be given as doctrine (disputable matters, matters that are situational in nature). This will answer questions such as Is it sin? or If it is not sin, does it fall under personal conscience? or If they are correct, MUST I and my spouse do this? or They are absolutely wrong, but is the choice a disputable matter that I am forbidden to judge them over per Romans 14? 
And since it is unfair to lump everyone into the same basket, I plan to mention different viewpoints/positions within people who in general believe in wife submission plus spanking. NOR should it be wrongly confused with wild alternate lifestyles such as BDSM and torture and other weird sexual stuff - Responsible Authority is a different concept, but can be confused easily with other viewpoints making it guilty by association. 
Unfortunately for Responsible Authority believers, this viewpoint is generally called Domestic Discipline and is often shortened to its initials DD. This is just too close to BDSM and doesnt help things. And evil websites sell pictures called DD that are BDSM in nature. However, I will use the abbreviation DD anyway as a convenient shortcut. 
(Father God, please help me to write this by your grace and in your truth. In Jesus Christs name I pray. Amen.) 

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 11:26 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (24 of 271)  
 
  295.24 in reply to 295.21  
 
Lets get started! 
The arguments below assume that you are a Christian and that you believe that the Bible is Gods inspired word in accordance with II Timothy 3: 16. I contend that if you do NOT believe that, then arguments for or against Discipline are immaterial since there would be no real way to find objective truth. Your definition of abuse, etc., would probably be whatever the changing culture can tolerate, for example. 
I will debate for the spanking side. Even if that position is NOT correct, this paper should be quite useful in over-viewing the arguments. Please dont let that offend you - rather, go along with it and engage your mind and your faith in Gods word. 
I am confident that many people have NOT heard these arguments, unless they are already involved with DD. 
You will probably be very surprised at the arguments. Many of them are based on things like love, gentle concern and Biblical truth. And even the arguments against this position (Freedom before God, Grace verses Law, be gentle in all you do) are surprisingly able to be used FOR disciplining a wife. (You might have to read it to believe it!) 
This paper - even if DDs are utterly wrong - will almost certainly give you much, much food for thought on issues of love, sanctification, freedom (does freedom contradict rules?) and other issues. It could also provoke you to NON-spanking ways that married men should be actively responsible, such as praying for their wives, helping to set a positive God-centered tone for the family, and gentle understanding of a wifes needs. 
DEFINITIONS (please read carefully): 
DD = Domestic Discipline. Within the CHRISTIAN context it refers to a belief that the husband is to be submitted and under authority to God, and the family (wife, kids) are in turn under the husbands authority. What separates DD from simply being common conservative Christian belief is that DD further holds that authority inherently includes the ability to take action (discipline, spank, command and expect to be obeyed). 
Authority implies a power to influence and motivate those under your authority - evaluating them can lead to positive or negative consequences. There should are general guidelines so that things remain safe and proper. 
A Sergeant that cannot command a private under him isnt really a Sergeant. Authority without ability is merely a hoax. Or worse, it is a satanic lie to undermine Gods chain of command and loving wisdom. 
Responsible Authority = another name I used above instead of DD. Again, the viewpoint is that the man is responsible before God to lead his wife, and has the authority to act upon his wife and not merely suggest changes. DD sounds too close to BDSM and that is NOT the concept we are dealing with here. But because it is shorter, Ill generally use DD anyway. 
BDSM = Bondage, sadism, etc. - erotic power plays and pain. This is general NOT what DD is referring to, but it can easily be confused because of spanking and people being wrongly referred to as dominants and submissives. More on this later. 
Dominants (Doms) = In BDSM, the person who is officially dominant in a relationship. It is a BDSM term that is wrongfully used to describe Responsible Authority roles - I will contrast them later. 
Submissives (subs) = In BDSM the same basic same idea, only the one who is to be the follower in the sexual playing. Again, this is not what DD is about. 
Vanilla = someone new to the DD lifestyle, a newbe. Usage: My husband and I were vanilla, but after a while we got used to obeying God radically in this area and have enjoyed the benefits of it. 
Implement = Something other than a hand that is used to spank, such as a brush or paddle. 
Abuse = in DD terms, it generally would mean any NON-spanking hitting or harm. For example, a Christian parent may feel ok to spank their child - but would NEVER wish to slap, hit or in any other way hurt the individual. In some cases, this may be further expanded. 

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 11:26 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (25 of 271)  
 
  295.25 in reply to 295.21  
 
Erotic pain (verses disciplines pain) = erotic pain, like in BDSM and in some spanking and play is for fun and for sexual reasons. I will NOT be dealing with the issue of whether that is right or wrong here. It is not the point. 
DD is basically NOT about gaining sexual fun, but instead gaining loving homes where the power struggle and games are replaced with love, respect and calm gentleness. (Although of course some DD couples - and NON DD couples - may be involved in both erotic and discipline spanking. Again, not the issue here.) 
By the way, if you ever read forum posts by DD wives you may be in for an eye-opening experience. Right or wrong, some women testify of how they would never want to go back to their pre-DD lifestyles simply because now they feel loved and the war is over. And how they dont necessarily like discipline but like the results in their lives and marriages. Their statements can be quite interesting if you are not used to this viewpoint and the benefits that DD people claim to be gaining. 
Still cant believe there even COULD be arguments for such a thing? Right or wrong, here are quite a few: 
As you can see, there are several issues to cover. So let me use a question and answer format, where I pose a question and then answer it. Please do NOT jump to later questions! Take the time to read this, please, so that you have the whole picture. Later questions may be based on issues discussed in earlier ones, for example, or assume you have read all that is before it. 
QUESTION #1: Does a man have authority over his wife in the first place? 
(This is a KEY issue, and so this part is a bit long. But it is an important foundation for the rest. Please dont skim!) 
The DDs side overall would it seems say yes. Although some couples just might be into DD in order to have what are seen as major benefits of that non-traditional lifestyle, others are sincere Christians who are trying to obey God. 
I went to a forum on this topic - some DDs are pastors of churches. A conviction that the Bible is true, and a willingness to mold their mind to the Bible and challenge traditions of men and culture can be a reason to become a DD. 
Back to the question - yes. There are several passages in Scripture that clearly indicate that God sets up lines of authority that we must follow. If a Marine disobeys the captains clear order, he or she is also disobeying the General, the president, and ultimately the entire authority of the Marines. 
Before I look briefly at some passages, there is a strong warning that I need to give first: 
Be careful here - there is a tendency for some to muddy the waters by adding other issues to this question. For example, whether a woman should be silent in a church or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether she is under her husbands authority. NEITHER does the question of whether she can be a pastor. These smokescreen topics are not to be used to neglect what God states about authority in the marriage relationship. Beware anyone who tries to fix the verses on authority with verses that dont really have a direct bearing on the marriage relationship. 
A starting point: Heres one section of Scripture on wives submitting: 
Now then, what did God mean when He told us: 
Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, . I Peter 3: 1 
the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling his lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (I Peter 3: 5-6). 
First, notice the likewise in verse 1. It refers to chapter 2, where God gives submission again and again. EVERYONE is to submit to kings and governors who are to punish evildoers according to I Peter 2: 13. Then servants are dealt with and told to also be submissive and under Gods will for themselves. Then in verse 25 - immediately before the wife verse - he speaks of Jesus as the Overseer of our souls. 
In other words, God simply inspires Peter to bluntly tell people to submit to the authority that He had allowed or placed over them. There is no IF statements in the wife verse that would allow her to wiggle out of it. Nor does God say that the wives need NOT submit after AD 1000. There is nothing conditional about verse one above - God tells us that Jesus is our Overseer, and immediately follows that with a command to the wives. 
Generally people try to get around these verses by claiming it was just their culture. But that makes God out to be a poor communicator, forgetting to tell us that the rules have changed. Personally I think you need more than wishful thinking and a guess that it was cultural. 
Jesus being our overseer - was THAT cultural? Its 5 words away from wives! If the wife verse is no longer valid, why would the immediately proceeding Overseer verse be still valid? After all, they are connected. Because Jesus is overseer, wives are to submit. The word likewise connects the two chapters. 
See the flow? Submit to kings  submit  Jesus is Overseer  wives submit  
I have heard of the commands to servants being second-guessed. Oh, if he were alive NOW he would have written differently. But isnt it strange to think that servant in the last 500 years are to get different rules to live by before God than all those that came before? Did God forget something the first time? 
Servants ARE to submit - not because servitude is right, but simply because it is wise to do so and being under authority leaves the servant walking well with God. The master is responsible for what he or she does to a servant, and after this blink of an eye life is over they have all eternity to live in the consequences of their decisions. The servants God speaks of in I Peter are dead - and so are their masters. We need to have an eternal perspective. 

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 11:27 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)     
 
    
 
In an ETERNAL perspective, the servant is actually called Gods free man and free people are called figuratively Gods slaves. Free people are accountable to God for their freedom, while not as much is expected of servants and slaves - they dont have the opportunity to do much.) 
Again, slavery is wrong. But God knew the best way for people to survive it with dignity, virtuous character, and an eternal reward for well-doing in the face of hardships. 
He commanded submission, not because slavery was right, but because they needed to walk in faith and godly character, and not be self-seeking like the world! BUT God also says elsewhere that if you have the chance to be free - take it! Gods wisdom is not always simplistic, but it is eternally wise. 
Actually God purposefully attacked the idea of seeing wife submission as cultural. But you may have missed it in the verses above. Lets look at it again: 
In Peters day, Rome ruled, Israel was and had been a nation for a long time, the Law had been given to Moses and so forth. Peter basically tells THESE people in THEIR culture that the rules of ABRAHAMS Pre-Moses, pre-Law, pre-Rome culture still applied! Did you see it? (Reread sections of vs 4-5, above.) 
These women live in a time FAR after Moses, after the giving of the Law, after the birth of Israel, after David and Solomon, after the first Temple, after the Roman occupation. And yet here God is telling them to look to godly examples BEFORE the Law, before Israel itself, and still follow those rules. 
Go to the pre-Israel culture, and learn from a saint. Culture doesnt matter - the fact that Sarah and others walked in Gods way is what counts! Learn from their example, regardless of your culture. 
In other words, God had made His will clear. Each generation is simply to ignore their present culture and seek Gods ways. 
BY THE WAY, I find it humorous that people try desperately to make THESE clear verses only cultural, while the NEXT verses (concerning husbands role) is still supposed to be followed! How can you hold to the husbands role as still valid, but deny the wifes role given immediately before it? Here is the husbands role (still in effect pretty much EVERYONE would agree?) Notice the likewise here also - God even TIES the male part to women submitting. 
being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham 
And the NEXT verse: Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel [physical strength, probably], and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered. (I Peter 3: 7) 
I have NEVER heard someone say that the hindered prayers part was merely cultural and ended 2000 years ago or so. And even very liberal preachers will tell the men to live in understanding and to give her honor. And yet it is directly connected with wives being submissive to their husbands. 
Quick note: Submission is submission: 
God tells us all to submit to Him. And He tells wives to submit to their husbands. Strangely, some people insist on creating two different definitions of submission to get around this. 
ONE definition is the correct one: This person has authority over me, so as long as it is not sin before God, I am expected to obey and really need to do so to please God. This definition might be tolerated when referring to God, the king, rulers, or such. 
BUT a second definition appears when dealing with wives. The same word is given the definition I should give some honor to this person, but I am to decide what to do and do not need to obey. In fact, if he COMMANDS me he is already in the wrong! 
This is actually the opposite of submission! Would you use that last definition when referring to submitting to GOD? Of course not. The word submit cannot be simply redefined because a person does not want to obey its original meaning. And yet when referring to wives, people call such disobedience submission. 
Whether spanking is right or wrong, these arguments against the authority of a husband tend to be quite absurd. BUT if authority is true, much of the rest of the DD belief system falls into place (more later). 
More verses commanding a wife to submit to her husband: 
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 
For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church, and He is the Savior of the body. 
Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her. 
Children, obey your parents.. (Ephesians 5: 22-25, 6: 1) 
I challenge you to reread those verses carefully. Notice the following: 
HOW are wives to submit? In the same way they submit to the Lord. (So much for that second definition given for submission.) as to the Lord 
Who is the head? The husband is. And what this means is clear - as Jesus is the head of the church, the ruler, so the man is in authority and is to rule. I have heard it argued that head does not refer to the ruler-ship, but in the context of this and the next chapter, it makes no sense at all to try to redefine head as something else just to get around the plain call for wives to obey. God says submit and then (why submit?) For that man is your head. 
THEREFORE - notice this - JUST AS -SO LET THE WIVES. In other words, to argue that a wife need not obey, you must further argue that the church need not obey Jesus. Jesus becomes a figurehead, not a king. They are connected - as Jesus rules the church, husbands rule their wives. 
Husbands love - again notice that people accept the MANS part without any problem usually, even when denying the immediately prior direct statement of the womens role. And as God goes on, he eventually also gets to Children, obey as well. Deny one, and you need to deny them all. 
ANYWAY, enough on the authority issue. 
If you still need proof of a womans role, reread the above and pray hard. And check yourself - are you having trouble placing faith in those verses? And if so, is it honest un-sureness, or do you want them to mean something else? May God bless all honest attempts to understand His Word. 
QUESTION #2: Isnt spanking a wife abusive? 
A: That depends on how you define abuse. Even spanking children is seen by some people in this culture as abusive. Taking kids to church might be seen as abusive to some people, since some may see religion as abusive to children. So letting the culture define what is abusive is dangerous and unwise. So we need to find out what God considers abusive and what He does not, and set our convictions there. 
Biblically, giving physical discipline and the pain involved is NOT seen as abusive, but is actually commended and pointed to as a very wise thing to do. LACK of giving pain can in fact be abusive, Biblically. Lets look at this a bit. 
In the Bible, spanking a CHILD is not abusive (Prov 13:24). (Although a wife is an ADULT, this becomes important later in this section.) And in fact God rebukes the father who does NOT give the child pain. In Hebrews 12: 5-11 God tells us that He treats us the same way - loving His children, Christians, enough to correct us. 
You may want to read that section, noting words such as chastening scourges and pain. God reminds them of what good fathers do (physical pain) and then God makes it clear that (1) they were right to do so and (2) that God is a good parent who uses the same basic method even though it is generally spiritual in nature. 
Furthermore, giving physical pain to ADULTS is not considered to be abusive either (when it is done BY proper authority in a disciplinary way). In Proverbs 10: 13 God clearly states that the rod (physical pain given by the God-given authority) is supposed to be given to those that lack understanding. 
Notice that the verse does NOT limit this to a government at all - it simply gives Gods view a rod is for the back. God states a general principle that pain is supposed to be used by authority for correction. 
In other words, if a wife has acted without understanding (ie. in a fool-hearty way, a disobedient way) the general principle within this verse may imply that pain is a legitimate response to correct her. It does NOT prove it however, since it is not addressed to wives. 
IMPORTANT NOTE: NO this is NOT a wife verse, but talks instead of a fool (which a Christian wife is NOT). But there is a general principle here, and I have proved utterly by this verse that giving a person pain as discipline cannot be called abuse Biblically. I will get into how to use this verse carefully a little bit later. 
Proverbs 26: 3 also states that some people are (like dumb animals) in need of correction. It compares the fool to a horse and donkey - for an authority figure to rule properly, he must make his horse trot, make his mule carry a burden, and give the fool motivation to also do what is right. Again, limited, proper giving of pain is the responsibility and right of authority. 
NOTE: I am NOT calling anyone a fool! These verses deal with someone God calls a fool, and not wives. My point is NOT that these are wife-discipline verses. They are NOT. My point however is two-fold. 
God clearly expects authorities to rule, and sometimes discipline is a part of wise leadership. The principle remains valid. After all, we all do foolish things and therefore temporarily find ourselves in a place of needing discipline (whether of God or of man). 
This KILLS the idea of calling DD abusive. If God HIMSELF will not call authorities giving pain abusive, and if He Himself uses that method, points to that method, commends that method and wants others to use the same method, then to call DD abusive is to call God abusive and His wise ways wrong. (Reread if you dont get the logic.) 
Disciplining a wife is simply men looking to God for Gods example on how to properly walk out authority. Since God ties authority with discipline, it is wise for a husband to desire to use Gods own method of responsibly using authority. Just guessing what role to play depending on the cultures (sometimes satanic) viewpoint at the time is not wise. Authority is never supposed to be a passive thing, or merely a final decision is yours right. Disobedience to authority is to have redemptive consequences. 
Does this PROVE disciplining a wife? No. But it does prove that it is an OPTION in Gods eyes, at the very least. 
Think this through: Is it abusive to spank a child or to discipline an adult with pain? Yes or no? If you say YES, it is abusive, then God is found to be wrong every time He expects it and any time God speaks of such a thing. 
In Hebrews 12, God speaks bluntly of giving Christians painful discipline at times to grow us up.) Calling the giving of pain abusive would make God HIMSELF abusive! Obviously that is not the case - God DIED for us and loves us! It is His LOVE that causes Him to give us pain to train us. 
I HAVE THEREFORE PROVEN that spanking is not in and of itself abusive. WHETHER to spank is another issue - but there is no way it can be abusive if God Himself sets physical pain (the rod) as a proper and godly way for authority to deal with unruliness (un - rule - ness). I have NOT proven wife spanking here! But the verses do prove that the rod is not necessarily abusive when used by authority. 
That is the basic idea behind DD - that women are given a loving man to be accountable to, and that women benefit greatly over time as their husband holds them accountable to a high standard of behavior. I plan to deal with this issue later. 
It is not abuse to hold someone accountable, and to let them know that they are responsible for their actions. That is respectful and loving (again, more on this later). 
And remember, to say that wife-spanking is abusive FORCES you to reject the Bible as inspired, since that would mean God is abusive, which He is not. 
You really do not have other options. Either pain and discipline are NOT abusive when given by authority, or they are. Since women are to submit like the church submits to Christ, and since the husband is to love like Christ loves the church, then it makes sense that Hebrews 12 type of discipline is in the man-wife relationship as well as the God-church relationship. 
So tell me, did God abuse and desire others to abuse (a rod for the back)? Of course not! Therefore physical pain in discipline is an acceptable and even godly method of using authority to enforce rule. 
QUESTION # 3: Ok, Ok, enough of that! Dont beat a dead horse! If I agree that it isnt Biblically considered abusive if done correctly (whatever that means), is abuse an issue to DDs at all? 
ABSOLUTELY!! 
First, any NON-spanking pain is absolutely off-limits, as is permanent marks and the like. After all, Christian parents who spank are also very careful to draw a godly line and go no further. 
DD is not wife-beating in the traditional sense of the term. It is to be a well-channeled program of accountability and obedience, with some bite to the commands. And anyway, we are talking a SPANKING here! No fists allowed, no drunken fights, none of that junk. Just a time of discipline. 
Unlike SOME non-DD marriages, the husband is NOT just building steam, and then letting go in inappropriate ways. Instead, he can give discipline with clear controls on what he can and cannot do. And then both can get on with their lives, without building up the dangerous male grudges that explode in some peoples lives. 
ANOTHER ISSUE ON THIS: This might surprise you, but DD wives sometimes complain that they are not spanked ENOUGH. That they are given too much leeway to do wrong before their husband will act as the authority and reign her in. A man in their view should learn to love his wife, and that means active participation in helping her to grow out of bad habits. 
Believe it or not, some DDs just may see it as abusive for a man to NOT take the DD lifestyle. Letting her go on without practical and real accountability and authority can be seen as abusive. A man who loves his wife should not let her go on unchecked in her desires and bad habits, since long-term those things are harmful to her and to the relationship and kids. 
TELL ME: 
Which is more abusive - a sore rear end given in love to teach someone not to repeat a sinful behavior? Or years of bad habits virtually unchecked, undermining the wifes life and hurting her relationships? 
Is it abusive to tell a wife to stop a bad attitude, and eventually back it up with a few minutes of pain? Or is it abusive to allow slander, horrible attitudes that affect the kids, or whatever her pet ungodly behavior is? Which is the long-term abusive relationship, a DD might ask? 
Finally, which is more abusive to the kids - them seeing mom and dad actually respect and love each other, or fights, games, power plays and mom doing her own thing? Or the CHRISTIAN games, where the wife supposedly submits but is very, very good at usually getting her will done and the husband is afraid to buck her? 
So abuse IS an issue - men are NOT to go beyond certain parameters, and it might be seen as abusive to leave a wife without a proper covering of a proactive (NOT passive) husband. 
QUESTION #4: But what about let your gentleness be evident to all? Doesnt the character traits God desires us to live in prohibit spanking? 
A few answers. First off, God has perfect character and - as seen already - both spanks us with painful things AND desired pain to be given both to children and to discipline adults. GOD our example is utterly gentle and virtuous and yet is also utterly able to hold us accountable to our actions and give pain, and tell others to do so. Gentleness and discipline are not mutually contradictory, or God would be a sinner. 
So be careful before you use the concept of gentleness to remove your responsibility to speak truth in love and act strongly when in authority. After all, does the gentleness and love and patience and other virtues stop you from eventually firing a poor employee? If you are a wise manager, no. 
KEY: Gentleness has perhaps been redefined. Gentleness does NOT mean does not give pain. Thats absurd. My dentist is gentle, but the root canal I had HURT. 
A gentle parent can love a child and be gentle and yet be firm and give discipline. If gentleness meant never giving pain, Christian parents would be in sin every time they obeyed Gods wisdom to use the rod to discipline their child properly. So obeying God would be sin. 
Gentleness does not mean painless, or gentle Jesus would have SINNED when he made a whip and cleared the Temple! No, He who was gentle was also expected by His Father to use authority. And authority is inherently tied to the ability to affect negatively those under authority. 
Let me repeat that: No, He who was gentle was also expected by His Father to use authority. And authority is inherently tied to the ability to affect negatively those under authority. 
Where there is no ability to discipline those under you, how can there be real authority? 
As for the other virtues, the point of DD is to USE those virtues FOR the wife, in a godly way. Love, patience and self-control are all a part of really ruling and occasionally disciplining a wife. (Ill give a bit more on this idea later on, and general made-up situations to ponder.) 
QUESTION # 5: So far you have argued that: (1) men have authority, (2) the rod cant be abusive since God OKed it and (3) virtues such as gentleness are not incompatible with DD. So tell me, what are these supposed benefits of DD? 
In a nutshell: 
(SOME DD might say - a bit extreme, but a great point:) Obedience to God. If a man really is the head, then it is sinful for him to NOT find and use Gods methods of wielding authority properly. How could we use MANS methods in order to properly carry the weight of responsibility God gave a man to carry? 
Protection of the wife spiritually from perhaps the accusations of the enemy and other spiritual attacks. Not being under the protected covering of her mate places her outside of Gods perfect will, and some believe would place her in a place where the enemy has a limited right to attack her. If anyone, man or woman, stands OUTSIDE of the castle walls of submission to Gods order (in family, church or government) they are more open to the enemys archers and foot soldiers. 
Protection of the wife as a whole, as her husband is to learn to be the head of the wife. Remember, Jesus the head of the church DIED for the church, and He also washes her by the water of the word. A wise husband is to understand his wife (from an earlier verse) and live wisely with her. Authority over her means responsibility to protect and love her. 
Accountability. Instead of doing her own thing, spanking can give great motivation to change in areas that she didnt have the willpower or desire to change in before. MUCH more on this later, as well as comments about sanctification, freedom and Grace. 
Children might grow up with the example of a father who loves the mother and of a mother who respects the father. And instead of merely fights and power plays and manipulation, they may see more peace as the wife lets go of trying to fight the man and learns to peacefully submit and yet still be a strong, vibrant woman at the same time. A woman who the husband has spent years actively helping her to grow in God (instead of the passivity in many marriages). 
Some DD wives speak of spankings as an emotional help. It can, it seems, stop the bad attitude and leaves peace in its wake at times. Cathartic is what I think at least one person called it. A reassurance that her husband is actively choosing to love her. A way to refocus from having a bad attitude. 
The man grows in his manhood, gaining confidence in God and in his God-given role. He needs to learn to go to God, since he really IS accountable to God for his family! In weaning himself from passivity and in accepting the mantle of responsibility for the care and welfare of others, he can become more like the active man of God he was created to be. 
No longer allowing his wife to grab control, he can grow in the areas of proper leadership, active accountability, and in the area of being RESPONSIBLE and not merely passing the buck or passively letting it drop from his shoulders. 
The wife is to learn peaceful submission. That is of great price to God, since a wife who internalizes submission to her husband over time should be also more submissive to God. 
The feeling of taking a step of faith based on the Bible, in spite of what the culture may say. A faith-strengthener as someone actively tries to obey God in an area even other Christians may judge them for. This sincerity and willingness to obey is very precious. Faith steps dont look nice or popular all the time anyway! 
There may be more, but here are some. I did not go into the emotional benefits here. You may want to ask some DD women in a forum about that side of things - they even speak of sometimes having a need emotionally to be spanked and a calming effect or whatever that it can have? Generally they say they do NOT like the pain, but very much like the peaceable fruit of the discipline. 
Their experience seems to mirror Hebrews 12: 11 
Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Hebrews 12: 11 
QUESTION # 6: You mentioned help in growing and losing bad habits (what Christians call sanctification). How could externals produce internal fruit? Arent we to walk in grace and not Law? 
Let me ask you this. God told you to obey the governmental authorities. You are not under Law for your right standing with God. But as a Christian disciple you are to obey God as Father and Lord. And there are consequences if you do not. And in GRACE God gave you the Holy Spirit and the power to grow and mature to be more like Jesus in this area. 
But one day you are speeding and get caught. If you are seriously concerned about growth in that area, dont you think a $100.00 ticket would motivate you to grow up in that area? Even just a little? 
Now some Christians who arent very mature might just pay the ticket and go on with life having never learned the lesson. But what if that immature Christian KEPT getting tickets, and others even told him or her to grow in that area? 
You see, true obedience to God is when we by FAITH follow Gods ways, trusting God for the grace, the undeserved favor, to help in the endeavor. But that does NOT rule out God using or allowing outside influences. 
A wife must CHOOSE by faith to gain Gods help to overcome a pet sin. No amount of spanking can change her - she needs God. HOWEVER, if her husband calls her to a higher standard in that area, holds her accountable, and gives her discipline, she certainly should have motivation now to work on it! 
KEY: You see, the GRACE is there as we go to God. And faith is a choice. The problem is that we often lack the motivation to seek God to overcome our sins. We get USED to our sins, and expect others to put up with them too! A husbands discipline changes the priority level - he is leading her to honestly deal with the issue. I will get into this in a fictional example later. 
But when a husband loves his wife and says to her: I care for you too much to let this go on and then holds her accountable, she now has motivation to seek God and grow up in that area. Her short time of pain can motivate to a long time of growth. Accountability is helpful. 
God states that with our temptations there IS a way of escape. Therefore if a husband is pointing out an area a wife needs to grow in, there IS help from GOD in that area. She is not alone, if she is a Christian, since Gods GRACE is there. 
Is she under LAW? No - she does not earn righteousness from God by her deeds, not does she earn her husbands acceptance by her deeds. But even Christians who are in Grace and not Law are responsible for their actions and reap the fruit thereof 
. And GRACE needs to be received - sometimes people are passive in an area and need motivation to bother to GO to God and really deal with it. 
IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE!! 
The topic is SPANKING. But keep in mind that Responsible Authority ALSO would include praying together over issues, church commitment, going together through a Bible study on an area the wife is accountable to change in, and so forth. The emphasis of this paper is spanking, but spanking is NOT the only thing (or even the main thing) that should be done! 
QUESTION #7: So far, men have authority, and spanking is not sinful since God Himself wanted people in authority to use physical pain on adults. BUT what about a wife - should she be spanked? Isnt that where all this should be leading? 
The problem is that you cannot START there. First you have to give Biblical reasons for authority in the first place. And then get rid of this cultures false definition of abuse. 
There are several different DD views on this. To be fair, I think I need to be clear about this - DDs are NOT all the same! 
ONE VIEW: One view is that a wife is to submit, a given, BUT that she has to give consent or permission before a husband can from that point on spank her. Although this is really contradictory to the whole authority and submission concept, it is perhaps a fairly practical way to enter into a DD lifestyle. In that way the wife and husband have been clear. There is even a CONTRACT on a website, where they can sign on the dotted line. 
It is a problem, however, if a husband believes Biblically he must use Godly methods to hold authority and becomes convinced that discipline of a wife is the wisest thing to do. Although there is no command to spank, or any command to NOT spank, he can reason that her unwillingness to be spanked is simply disobedience. 
That is the SECOND VIEW in a nutshell. Here is a logical thought process on this. Really give this some thought - see how things logically flow together: 
Husbands have authority over their wives (and they both believe that). 
She also knows that wives are commanded by God to submit as to the Lord and (in headship) to their own husbands in everything. She knows that Sarah even called Abraham lord, a level of submission that was openly acknowledged. 
THEREFORE she is to obey NON-SINFUL commands (=submit) 
THEN Husband in love commands her to allow herself to be spanked, to be accountable for her actions to him. 
This is NOT Biblically called sinful, and even supported as one way authority influences those under authority. 
Therefore she has no BIBLICAL grounds for not doing so. 
BUT she is temped to refuse to obey her husbands headship and authority, and considers disobeying his leadership command to allow herself to be disciplined. 
Heart motivations are perhaps tested. Willfulness, or FEAR, or another sinful attitude may convince her not to obey God. This may show also that she is not placing faith in God and trusting Gods decision to put her under authority to this man. 
She says no to her husband, refusing DD, perhaps not fully realizing that she is disobeying God and not merely her husband. 
THEREFORE she is not being submissive to her husband. She is in sin by her own admitted belief in wife submission, even though there is no biblical command for spanking. Because her husband made a DECISION in this area, where God has given no laws either way, she is bound by it and God will hold her accountable to what she did with it. 
Thats what authority is FOR anyway. If God commanded EVERY issue, you would need no leaders. Instead, God gives general guidelines and examples, and then trains up leaders to make further decisions - giving them wisdom. 
This greatly helps to work on submissive attitudes in people. People can CLAIM to submit to God, but that claim is tested when God has a mere human in authority over you. Can you trust and obery God when it is NOT a perfect situation? 
Finally, when she stands before God she is NOT responsible for whether her husbands decisions were all right or not. She IS however responsible to whether she obeyed the command of God to submit to her husband. 
This argument is powerful. IF you believe in wives submitting to their husbands, THEN you are stuck with at LEAST the opportunity for the husband to spank (with a few exceptions Ill hit next). 
There are a few exceptions. One is that it MAY be sinful to her, due to perhaps her being medically too sick to risk any such thing at all, pregnancy, or something like that. 
But these are not that common (pregnancy is of limited duration, and very few wives are too sick to be disciplined although CERTAINLY some are and they need to give her the benefit of the doubt. Never risk the womans health! There are also NON-pain disciplinary actions too that can be used - removing a privilege or so on.) 
The other exception is the conscience exception. If she is CONVINCED it is sin to submit to a spanking, honestly, then of course she must not break her conscience. In that case the husband needs to really take the time to go over the concept, and challenger her to PROVE it is sinful. How can we call sinful something God NEVER condemns? Patient instruction and prayer by the husband may be warranted. 
QUESTION # 8: Is this related to BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sadism and the like?) 
No, other than that both may spank. Both I and Bill Gates own computers - that doesnt make me rich or him an Ohioan, does it? After all, a parent that spanks a child isnt into BDSM either. And I sincerely doubt that the leaders in authority who used the rod on adults (Proverbs) were into BDSM either! 
There are several key differences in DD as a whole: 
DD spanking is for discipline and pain, and may be unpleasant for both the husband to perform and the wife to accept. Its not SUPPOSED to be fun, but corrective. 
Even if both partners get used to the arrangement, it has a purpose beyond a game, toy or sexuality. It is building a godly marriage and developing a loving husband and a respectful wife. 
BDSM often gets into humiliation. That is not the intent if DD. I remember one DD person referring to this idea, saying basically that she felt humbled but not humiliated when spanked. Feelings of humiliation may come if the wife is temped in that area, but that is not the desired outcome. 
BDSM spanking is for its erotic possibilities, and/or for the use of role playing and domination lifestyles where power and humiliation are often key. They use the term discipline as a role-playing exercise, but generally it is either sexual, or a power play, or such. This is in contrast to DDs insistence that women are to be loved and protected and cared for. 
DD is FREEING but holds you accountable, while BDSM is often into a person NOT being free to choose (or at least the role playing that they are not free). A DD wife is free to act wisely or foolishly - but she cannot complain if she is held accountable for her actions in order to motivate her to do better. 
DD itself does not do tie-me-up bondage games, tortures like hot wax, and so forth. There is not based on fetish props. It has implements (paddles, etc.) for a purpose, but it is for a practical purpose. 
A BDSM dominant rules, ties up, and so forth. This is not the same as a loving husband whose goal is to understand his wife and love her like Jesus loved the church and died for it. 
BDSM is generally selfish and soulish. DD can be love and other-centered. 
Submissives in BDSM are at times lowered and humiliated and ruled. They are to think of their masters and only seek to please that person. 
Christian DD holds that there is only ONE overall master, GOD, and that the husband is in authority ONLY because God put him there. Both husband and wife are to seek GOD and seek to practically love and honor one another. 
Christian DDs basically have decided that the head of the household must PRACTICALLY love by holding the wife accountable, and to love and protect her. Both have a commitment before God to take seriously such words as submit and authority and love - and to work it out in the real world by using discipline. 
IMPORTANT NOTE: These are my views of the difference between DD and BDSM. Keep in mind that some couples feel free to add BDSM to their lives as a game. For example, a wife who is disciplined by spanking may also occasionally get a swat for fun or erotic reasons. That is a couples choice, and should not be confused with straight DD. DD itself does not contain these elements - but some add things. 
QUESTION #9: Does a couple HAVE to become DD? 
Two answers - on the human, more general, side, NO, they dont HAVE to so. However, if they become convinced that it is a sin to not discipline a wife, then they must follow their conscience. 
Since there is no direct command for OR against using physical discipline in a marriage relationship, it seems to be up to the husband to see if that is a tool that he thinks would be wise to use. But once a man sees this as a tool God has both used and commended, he should be willing to use Gods wisdom and forsake his own. So a husband or wife COULD fall into sin here, by trusting his own thoughts rather than God, or by stubbornness or pride. 
For those that agree that it is not necessarily sin to spank: Ask yourself this question: Are you WILLING to do it? Whether you CHOOSE to do it or not, if you are not even WILLING, that is evidence of a problem in your humility before God and your ability to TRUST God. IF you are willing, then it becomes a decision to make. 
BUT on Gods perspective, if God has given a man insight as to this tool and the accountability and proactive love model of marriage, it is between him and God whether he follows Gods leading (IF IT IS) or not. I do not want to speak for God - whether God ever leads someone to DD or not is not the point. I am saying that IF God does, it would be sin to not obey. 
QUESTION #10 What if someone strongly disagrees with DD? Should he or she tolerate it, or speak against it? 
Let me lead up to my answer: One of the hottest issues in the early church was whether or not new gentile converts had to follow the law to be saved. The answer of course was NO. Keep that in mind when you consider Romans 14. 
In Romans 14, Paul speaks of disputable matters. Even though he KNOWS that you do not have to keep a Sabbath anymore (part of the Law), he refuses to judge people for keeping one. He states that one person esteems one day above another, and another person esteems them all alike. Then Paul tells us that God accepted BOTH people (so keeping the Sabbath wan unnecessary, but you could do it if you wanted to in faith). 
Lesson learned? Even in a hot, emotional topic where you are SURE you are right, you cannot simply judge someone and should not condemn them verbally UNLESS you have clear biblical reasons to do so. 
Since discipline is NEVER outlawed, and is commended, it is hard to call it sin to have discipline in a marriage even if you strongly disagree with it. God did not sin, nor did others who used discipline. 
Therefore it seems to me that to judge a married couple for a decision to follow such convictions is not proper. Giving your opinion or feelings and using that to judge another is not right. If in fact you have a burden to do so, that might be a good sign to ask yourself WHY you are upset. After all, swats on the bottom arent exactly that big of a deal - unless of course you have rejected submission as a whole, OR have an emotional reaction to it. 
Question # 11: What do you mean, emotional reaction? 
Maybe possible examples will help. 
For example, I would expect a rape victim to desire to be in control, in order to safeguard herself. Submitting to a man might be emotionally very hard to do, since any unforgiveness, pain, anger and distrust of men could all hinder the ability to trust God to put her under authority to a man. After all, if ONE man hurt her by rape, it might be hard to understand and emotionally accept a loving man at all - let alone a loving man who takes love and authority as serious responsibilities. 
Another example would be an older single woman who is so used to doing things her own way that it seems emotionally unappealing to submit. Especially if she is selfish and into self-actualization. To be fair, you hope such a woman would marry a caring man who understands her and helps her to accomplish things under his authority. 
Which leads to another example - someone who has the mindset or emotional belief that submission means that she will not be allowed to become all she can become in God. Quite the contrary, submission may take her straight to Gods will. And a protected, disciplined wife who knows she is held accountable to a high standard should really accomplish far more than a wife whose husband takes a passive approach to a relationship and to his headship. 
Another example would be the feminist who sees DD as against women even though it claims to be FOR them. My call to such a woman would be to see the heart of Jesus Christ. Jesus believed in authority, but it did not lower women but elevated them. And secondly, ask yourself about your faith in the Bible. 
After all, Jesus came just as Gods prophets foretold. The Bible really is Gods book. Can you TRUST God to communicate His will? Why would God NOT want to give a perfect book? He really loves you - you may have simply not seen the depths of it yet. But if you come to and trust Jesus as a loving person, then maybe you can trust Him for the rest of the issues of life. 
QUESTION # 12: I am interesting in DD, and believe it is both Biblical and beneficial. I want a marriage with love, respect and accountability. How do I tell my spouse/future spouse about this? Im embarrassed! 
Thats a tough question to answer. PRAY! 
I would suggest this article of course. Or maybe get him curious by having fun on a Christian DD forum on the web - just go there with him, and read some posts together. 
Dont worry if he or she puts down the posts or seems negative. That may be a good time to give this article, using curiosity developed from the forum. 
And finally, maybe you could just be bold and get it over with. At least THAT might give serious motivation to read this - if nothing else to figure out what you are talking about and why! 
Question # 13: Do you have any practical guidelines? 
Yes, although there is probably variety in how people work out DD. 
To the husband: (BOTH wife and husband should read both lists!!) 
Make sure that she knows your expectations. It is not fair in general to spank her in areas she honestly did not know she was in the wrong. 
You are effective if she loves and respects you. But this can be horribly misused. For example, we are to fear God (respect God and respect His discipline and rule over our lives). But a Christian is a CHILD of God and is NOT to live in terror (I John speaks of perfect love casting out that type of fear). As a husband, NEVER inspire personal terror, but it is ok if she is in fear of a spanking - that is natural. 
The idea is discipline, not humiliation. Her bottom should be hurt, but she should not be purposely publicly humiliated. This is a private thing. Others may know you are DD, but she should not have to fear that you will spank her openly. 
DD is NOT an excuse for a power trip!! You must concentrate on being UNDER authority to God - THAT is your focus. And as Gods servant and child, you then on that basis choose to love your wife and responsibly lead her. If you LOSE this focus you can lose the healthy understanding of being under authority, and become domineering. Domineering is sin and shows selfishness and pride, all of which saps your wifes trust and respect in you. (Following THIS alone should give you a great start on deciding how to apply DD.) 
Her rear end and nearby is the only appropriate target. The Bible speaks of a rod to the back, but she is more sensitive and you want to be ultra-cautious with your treasure and not do any real harm. Stick with the safer spot. Discipline is to be temporary - never even THINK of doing something that would give a long-tern harm. That would show a lack of concern for her well-being, and she could lose respect for you. No, give her spankings to remember, and let her sit on pillows occasionally. But thats it. 
Be consistent in discipline. If you are on again, off again you are not taking your love responsibility seriously enough. Does God take breaks from loving you? No, that does NOT mean that you always spank - pray for wisdom. But you never want her to question whether you are obeying God by walking out your headship in a responsible way. Passivity is sin. Do not shirk your responsibilities before God. 
While you need to avoid passivity, keep in mind that spanking is not always the way to go. Its fine to give her vacations from the possibility of spanking, for a short time, or use other measures (withhold a priviledge that is optional but fun for her, for example). And quite frankly, over time she shouldnt need it as often anyway (you hope) as she develops self-control and submission as a lifestyle. Be wise and loving. 
Furthermore, you may want to TEST her maturity in an area. The ONLY way to do that is to promise to NOT spank in that area for a set period of time (2 months?). And then and see how she does without accountability. If she loses the habit in a month, she needs more help there - maybe you can study the topic in the Bible, pray together about it, and so on. If you only spank, you will have no idea whether she has taken enough faith-steps to be solid in an area or not. (Rereads the green note at the end of question 6 above.) 
But at first, in the first few years of marriage, you may find her in need of accountability in many areas. Be sensitive, work on only a few main areas at a time, but do what you must. If you work on EVERYTHING she may feel she is disciplined too much. And she can feel a great weight of trying to be perfect in many areas, and that simply isnt fair. NO, like a wise parent does with children PICK several issues. When THEY are dealt with well and accountable, prayerfully add to them or replace them. If you are a perfectionist FIGHT the urge to apply that to her. 
The goal is NOT for her to learn to be controlled by you! The goal is for her to learn SELF-control by having consequences to her decisions. How can she learn self-control, break old habits and learn new habits if she feels she has to be perfect in all things right from the beginning f the marriage? Pray, pick the areas to work on first, and go from there. 
Be very kind. Make the conversation open. Make the acts of respect and love free. Make the encouragement routine. Make the spankings real, not play, and painfully honest. And make the focus on God clear your number 1 priority. And then let God create a peaceful household of trust in God and real responsibility before Him. 
To the wife: 
Keep your focus on obeying GOD. Dont be too husband-focused. Your goal is to please Christ, not merely obey your husband. IF you concentrate on your imperfect husband, you may find it hard to walk in FAITH. IF however you are trusting in God and resting there, then you can have faith that God will use your imperfect husband to be a blessing to you. 
Your husband is imperfect. Therefore you will almost certainly be given commands that you disagree with. So long as it is not sinful to obey, you will need to TRUST GOD and OBEY GOD and simply obey your husband. 
There will be commands to prepare to be spanked. Respect his leadership. If you strongly disagree with him and dont believe you should be spanked, then tell him (with a submitted attitude). But even if you disagree, you are still under authority and must before God go and prepare for discipline. He has the authority by God to discipline you - it is between him and God whether he is doing it for the right things or not. 
Your husband will NOT always choose wisely, but God has given authority and you have to come to grips with (1) your husbands right to fail, and (2) your obedience even when he does. Let God sort it all out - YOU could be wrong yourself. Can you trust GOD to work all of this for good? Since GOD sees all this, TRUST God. Let it work in you good character traits - face it, life isnt fair for ANY of us, or perfect, and yet we still must act obediently and responsibly. 
Do not allow abuse!! You have every right to go to your pastor, etc. in the case of abuse. Remember, you are not alone. God has safeguards. An abusive husband still has authority, and a right to spank is there (like it or not), but if he goes beyond that then you must choose to get help. Never let a man confuse you by trying to blend angry punching or some such thing with discipline. Thats baloney. The wisdom from above is pure, peaceful, easy to be entreated. Love is kind (not always pain free! But kind). 
It can be VERY hard to obey or be PROPERLY disciplined by an abusive spouse. Your heart will be closed, your trust shattered. But, like fixing him a meal or giving him sex, you still need to go on as his wife before God. Unless of course he simply cannot be trusted to ONLY spank you, which means that you need to get the pastor directly involved. And let it be known that anything beyond spanking is unacceptable - you can even separate from him for a time to drive the point home. Your pastor needs to be consulted. 
I caution you not to allow his sin to be an excuse for you to sin in return. You do what is right as a submitted wife, and let God handle him - it is a horrible thing to abuse a Daughter of the King! But my sympathies if this has been your experience. If you are struggling in this area, pray, trust God, and read I Peter 2:18 through 3:1. 
NOTE: Many men may probably be embarrassed at first to even spank! And NOT all men are abusive at all. Most men do NOT hit, and yet sadly some women have experience with those men who do. Dont toss out Godly authority and wisdom just because some men do evil. You dont toss the idea of having policemen just because some cops are crooked, and you dont throw away all your food if you find something rotten in the frig. No, deal with the exception, and maintain faith for Gods lines of authority. 
Question # 14: But some wives are FREE in Christ! They are trying to walk in freedom, not bound, and are enjoying this type of Grace from God. Why would you want them to be bound by such rules? 
I am a big believer in freedom! Women really need to be free, not bound spiritually or emotionally to things such as rejection or fears. They should be able to RUN with God, with the fears off their shoulders and a JOY that is supposed to be characteristic of Christianity. Chains have no place in a Christians life! 
Now tell me, when a Christian woman who is free obeys the speed limit to escape the consequence of a speeding ticket, is she free? Of course! She is free spiritually, encouraged in God and probably has JOY that she is able to freely obey God and not speed. She wants SOO much to please Gods heart, and not speeding is a pretty EASY way of blessing the Lover of her Soul! 
Men and women who are NOT free are bound by various things - by fear of man, feelings of rejection, insecurity, guilt, worthless feelings, and so on. These chains of feelings, wrong beliefs and sinful attitudes choke out a faith-filled walk with God, and affect those around them. Some are deep hurts that need healing. Others are simply unbelief or lack of knowledge of God and His ways. 
Great sensitivity is useful, since the hurts can run very deep (especially in extreme cases such as incest, rape, abandonment, alcoholic parent, and so on). God may convict of sin, but us humans need to be careful to not add to the emotional hurts unnecessarily 
A free woman is MORE able to be blessed by DD, not less. The things that bind up a less free woman could hinder her ability to freely live out a loving submissive life with her husband. And more importantly, a woman lacking in freedom may have trouble trusting Gods work through her husband, or struggle in giving up a self-protective control of a situation. 
Deep hurts can lead to strong self-protection, which can in turn lead to an unwillingness to obey God in faith since to do so is to lose control over situations. This is in general, NOT just in dealing with submission to a husband. 
But a FREE woman is strong and encouraged by God, and is therefore in a better place to trust God and obey in areas that she cannot control what happens. And that of course also includes submission to her loving mate. 
Actually, DD is a help to BE and REMAIN free. After all, if a wife will NOT submit to her husband (in non-sinful commands, remember) then that is evidence of a place where she lacks either freedom or understanding. 
With some discipline from a loving husband, she is motivated to really deal with the sinful attitudes and actions that have bound her. Obviously GOD must bring freedom into the wifes life. But He uses things such as encouraging friends, the Bible, church, and other ways to help His daughters be healed of the pains of the past. 
A husband can help the process also, as one more support of what God wants to do. A loving husband who sees his wife struggle in a sinful attitude or failing in an area of good habits can hold her accountable and give her clear motivation. Just like a policeman does, or like God says he does in Hebrews 12. 
Lets give an example situation. 
A wife has no habit of Bible reading. She is passive about it, apathetic, saying I know I SHOULD but gets busy with other things and is not really making the changes in this area that are needed. 
Her husband sees this giving up on the area. He also sees and is concerned by some attitude problems, unbelief, and overall lack of encouragement and joy in her life. He knows that Bible reading would really help, but she simply has not made it a priority to be encouraged by God instead of playing super-wife. Until she is trusting in God and not in her hyperactivity, she cannot be free. 
He has a choice - act like a normal husband, say something, and then watch years go by. Learn to cope with her. Let her live as a woman not under authority, doing as she pleases, hurting herself, not changing. Most men spend more effort learning to COPE with a wifes bad habits that DD husbands probably spend in CORRECTING them and helping her to grow. 
And so in love takes responsibility to actively love and support her. He tells her that she is responsible to read the Bible daily, and that he will hold her accountable and spank her if needed to help her overcome the bad habit and start a new one. The bad, evil, habits must be changed, and he loves her far too much to leave her in such a weak and dangerous place. 
And so the wife, who WITHOUT such motivation is rarely into the Bible, now has a choice - work on this issue that day, or be disciplined for that days choice to sin. So the wife purposes to read it daily. She knows he is right, and the possibility of discipline helps her focus and take up the new habit. What was once on her eventually list is now on the do today list. 
The fact that her husband holds her accountable helps her to overcome passivity and apathy. With a renewed focus she tackles her sin of laziness, and with her husbands love and encouragement starts to grow in Bible reading as a habit. 
Occasionally she fails, is disciplined, and is re-motivated again to persevere in doing good. Realizing the purpose behind the discipline, and the fact that SHE caused it by her bad choice that day, it helps her to choose well and fight temptation the next time. She knows she needs to God to God and gain grace for this issue, and it is now a top priority. 
The husband is not growing her. He is motivating her and re-aligning her priorities! Then she can go to God for the grace needed to mature in this. 
God uses the new Bible-reading habit to love, encourage and draw closer the daughter He loves. She becomes more free, more encouraged. She enjoys successful change, and is thankful that her husband actually loved her and wisely knew how to lead her to the next level. (Many husbands WANT to - but DD husbands have chosen a practical method to actually DO so.) 
Her times with God blossom, and she finds it humorous and a bit sad that her husband first had to use authority and discipline to get her into such a wonderful habit! And the husband stops asking that often - a missed day means nothing after a habit is established. He doesnt need to ride the issue, but can simple do an occasional check-up. She has CHANGED! 
The husbands leadership, and wise use of the tool of discipline, led to far greater freedom for the wife! 
And the next time her husband has an area to hold her accountable in, maybe she will with this newfound freedom be better able to submit in peace and TRUST that God is using her husbands active and responsible love. 

  
From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/6/2002 4:27 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (27 of 271)  
 
  295.27 in reply to 295.26  
 
Hi Karen,

 

You are doing a nice job of keeping the discussion Biblical centered and away from just opinions.

 

I found the postings to be a mix of good and bad scripture referencing and Ill add a few Bible verses that Im looking at.

 

Ill start first with this verse because this is the most obvious verse dealing with this topic. 

 

1 Timothy 3:2- 13

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and  the snare of the devil. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which  is in Christ Jesus.

 

These are the qualifications for Church leadership. A Bishop is a teacher from the Sunday school teacher to the group teachers and including the Pastor. All the teaching/Instructing positions are in the Bishop category. The Deacon positions are all of the service positions. Anyone who is helping, serving, moving, fixing, cleaning, cooking, facilitating is in the position of a Deacon. Deacons are getting experience, exposure and knowledge and are on their way to becoming a Bishop.

 

In both instances they are to have an orderly family, but it defiantly seems that order is to be maintained without striking  Especially the wife. I know that we can get into semantics but I think the word striker is exactly that the man is not to lift a hand to the wife and the brawler is a man who fights others. Im sure some would say than use a tool instead of the hand but I think the fact remains that striking of any kind is undesirable for Church leadership and service.

 

<continued>

 

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/6/2002 6:03 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (28 of 271)  
 
  295.28 in reply to 295.27  
 
That's the trouble with bible verses isnt it? We all have different interpretations. I personally do not see that a "striker" and one who practices DD in a consensual way are the same. You could then say that one who spanks his children is a striker. *smiles* It is good to have discussion. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/7/2002 10:29 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (29 of 271)  
 
  295.29 in reply to 295.28  
 
Striker means one that hits with their fist! And I still say their is no verses to justify hitting your wife, consensual or not! There are many telling you to take the rod to your Child [spanking], but none that tell you you can hit your child in the face; so slapping them is not justified either! And the Bible needs no interpretation except where Prophecy is concerned. The rest are the verses are to be taken as read.
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/7/2002 10:53 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (30 of 271)  
 
  295.30 in reply to 295.29  
 
If striker means one who hits with his fist, then i humbly submit that this verse does not apply at all, because that is NOT what this means at ALL. 
Couples who practice this do it in a controled way, NO FISTS...spanking ONLY. 

Did you happen to read the rest of what i posted? 

Karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/7/2002 4:17 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (31 of 271)  
 
  295.31 in reply to 295.30  
 
<continuing>

 

Other problems with the concept of Domestic Disciple are that the Woman was created to be a Helpmate for the man. Children are children and we are to discipline them but the wife is the wife/mother and she has a status above the children and is not to be treated as a child.

 

In the verses that you quoted Gen 1:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

 

Notice the desire for the woman to rule over the man is a direct result of the fall of mankind, every bit as much as the increased pain in childbirth is a direct result of the fall. God has appointed the man the head  leader of the family but this is Only temporarily and Only until Jesus comes and reigns and rules. Because when Jesus rules He is going to restore things to the Original creation state, removing sin and restoring the male female relationship to the original state.

 

For instance you gave an example that if a person in the military disobeys an officers order they are actually disobeying the President of America because the officer is acting in behalf of the President. This is true for Humans but it is Not true for God. To disobey a man is not to disobey God, Because God is Not represented by mankind. God Represents Himself.

 

In other words when Humans Discipline, disciplining children, it is a Sinner attempting to discipline another sinner and it is an imperfect system at best!

 

Hebrews 12:9-11

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but He (God) for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

 

It is clear that mans correction is fallible but God corrects with Perfect knowledge, love and ability.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/7/2002 5:57 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (32 of 271)  
 
  295.32 in reply to 295.30  
 
I could go on reading it, but you have not posted any Holy Scripture to back this up! If there is none to back it up, Then it's not a Godly command!
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/7/2002 6:07 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (33 of 271)  
 
  295.33 in reply to 295.26  
 
I came back here to read it again, just to see if I had missed the scripture that allowed laying a hand on your wife. You have nothing in here to support that. And after reading this first part, unless I misunderstand, you're saying we are slaves of God! A Slave is one who has no choice, we do! Either follow His Word or follow a path to destruction! If one feels forced to follow Christ, then one shouldn't
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/7/2002 6:08 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (34 of 271)  
 
  295.34 in reply to 295.32  
 
Uh, yeah there is.....in the first. And as i said, it isnt mandated, nor is it forbidden. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/7/2002 6:10 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (35 of 271)  
 
  295.35 in reply to 295.33  
 
*sighs* No, i dont think we are slaves of God. Where are you interpreting this from?? I would appreciate you at least reading the posts BEFORE you condemn them. I never said it was biblically mandated. I simply think it is an acceptable personal choice. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/7/2002 7:23 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (36 of 271)  
 
  295.36 in reply to 295.28  
 
There is no 'trouble with the Bible' 
whatsoever. A person who is not full of 
the Holy Spirit and able to hear the 
voice of the spirit will have very little, 
if any, understanding of God's Words. 
Did you ever hear of a spiritual leader 
or ruler? It is the husband's full 
responsibility to lead his family and 
wife in the way of God. He is to be 
an example for them, to pray, to teach, 
to do for them showing love every step 
of the way. He is to love his own 
wife "AS CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH". 
Do you have any idea what this means? 
Do you realize the responsibility God 
has placed on the heart and shoulders 
of the man? 

An ungodly person would read the scriptures 
possibly and see it as a way a husband can 
abuse his wife. God does not see it that 
way, and neither do true Christians. 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/7/2002 10:35:28 PM ET by 123FOUR 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Trish (MrsPentitent)    1/7/2002 10:30 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (37 of 271)  
 
  295.37 in reply to 295.7  
 
Uh Honey,

And I love my husband very much, but if he EVER tried that with me he'd find his bottom hittin the floor and his bags packed. And if your husband is ABUSING YOU in the guise of being Godly it's a lie from the pit! You are his wife and he is supposed to love you like Christ loves the church. Christ didn't beat His church into submission and a husband shouldn't either! This is domestic abuse, not domestic discipline. 

My first husband used to phisically and verbally abuse me so I've been in that situation before. He didn't hit me with a closed fist and someone had to tell me I was abused before I would even admit it to myself. You are abuse honey pure and simple! It is evil and people die every day from that sort of "love". 

If your husband is doing that to you it isn't Godly and I would say to you get out while you can walk before they take you out in a body bag. 

Those may be tough words but very true!

Blessings! 

Blessings and peace!

Trish

 

 

 



Host Our Daily Bread

Our Daily Bread 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/8/2002 4:09 am  
To:  123four   (38 of 271)  
 
  295.38 in reply to 295.36  
 
First and foremost, many many people interpret many scriptures in different ways all the time. I understand perfectly that YOU believe your interpretation is always the correct one, but personally I believe that specific scriptures can reveal different meanings to different people depending on what God wants them to hear at any given time. Please do not presume to imply that perhaps i am not a Christian again. That is not for you to decide, or imply. 
Not once did i mention abuse in any way...I personally think spousal abuse is heinous. I mentioned specifically a consensual spanking set up. 

Karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/8/2002 4:12 am  
To:  Trish (MrsPentitent)    (39 of 271)  
 
  295.39 in reply to 295.37  
 
Dear Trish, 
Thank you so kindly. I know your words are meant in love and they are true. God bless you. 

I wish to introduce you to a forum......here on Delphi where there are far more Godly women than me who live this life and it is NOT abuse. I understand how it might look this way though. 

It is a private forum, but if you are interested i will see what i can do. I feel terrible because i thought this would provoke lively discussion, not accusations of abuse. *sighs* 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Trish (MrsPentitent)    1/8/2002 8:54 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (40 of 271)  
 
  295.40 in reply to 295.39  
 
HI,

I surely didn't mean to make you feel bad hon. This is such an extremely touchy subject for me. I may have come on a bit strong. If the "spanking" is done a an adult I hate to say, it is abuse. That person is being treated like a child and not an adult. It is degrading and humiliating and should not be done in a Christian home. Especially when the husband is supposed to protect his wife! What sort of message does that send to a child? If they see this then it is possible that they have no respect for their mother because of the subservient way the father is treating her. 

My husband is the head of this house hold but he doesn't spank me or degrade me that way. 

Blessings!

Blessings and peace!

Trish

 

 

 



Host Our Daily Bread

Our Daily Bread 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  karen (karen10051)   1/8/2002 10:25 am  
To:  Trish (MrsPentitent)    (41 of 271)  
 
  295.41 in reply to 295.40  
 
Dear Trish, 
Thanks for your kind response. The children know in none of the homes that i am aware of. This is treated as privately as a sexual relationship. I agree with you that this could and would be horribly detrimental to a child, as would being witness to their parents sexual activities. Some things between man and wife are private. This is one. 

May i ask you a question? Suppose the wife wishes this? In the vast majority of cases it was the wife who introduced this to the home. They view it as neither humiliating nor degrading..but as loving. 

Karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/8/2002 12:58 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (42 of 271)  
 
  295.42 in reply to 295.38  
 
Spanking of one adult from another is 
so bizarre, then if the scriptures won't 
convince that person, then may a good 
therapist would help.Even Christians 
can have emotional problems. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/8/2002 1:13 pm  
To:  123four   (43 of 271)  
 
  295.43 in reply to 295.42  
 
I would like to thank you for your open-mindedness and respect toward me. 
In your first post, you implied i was not a Christian. In your second post, you imply i need psychological help. What a joy it is to communicate with you. 

I attempted to start a serious conversation. I even collected as much in the way of good solid scriptural background as i could. There has been no attempt at conversation in any way. Sometimes it seems there are 3 people on this forum. 

Let me say this, 1234, at least the other responses i got were respectful. If i WERE abused, which I am not, YOU would be the last person who would be of any help, because your attitude is so very rude. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/8/2002 2:17 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (44 of 271)  
 
  295.44 in reply to 295.43  
 
lol lol Dear , I just got home from a 
very hard days work. Guess I am not 
in a time I should be on the net. I 
said some (that's SOME) go to therapists 
if they feel a need to beat someone or 
feel the need to be beaten. That's 
right. Did u read that I said Christians 
can have emotional problems also? 
I don['t know who you are talking about 
in your posts. I thought you were talking 
at first about someone who didn't know 
God.I have never heard of a born again 
person having such ideas. If you are talking 
about yourself, you would just have to say 
so or I wouldn't automatically know that. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/8/2002 4:15 pm  
To:  123four   (45 of 271)  
 
  295.45 in reply to 295.44  
 
Number one, I am NOT your "dear". Please do me the courtesy of addressing me by my name, as I have done you. 
Number two, all MY days at work are hard, but i still find it in me to be polite. 

Number three, NO WHERE did i ONCE say anything about BEATING. I said spanking. 

Number four, in your original post to me, you DID imply i was not a Christian. 

I am talking about an entire population of people who practice this in a consensual way. They ARE born-again Christians. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Trish (MrsPentitent)    1/8/2002 5:43 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (46 of 271)  
 
  295.46 in reply to 295.41  
 
<<<<Suppose the wife wishes this? In the vast majority of cases it was the wife who introduced this to the home.>>>>

Uh.........then I'd have to say it is sick..........that's my opinion.

Blessings and peace!

Trish

 

 

 



Host Our Daily Bread

Our Daily Bread 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/8/2002 5:53 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (47 of 271)  
 
  295.47 in reply to 295.45  
 
I am ending this conversation with you. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/8/2002 6:00 pm  
To:  123four   (48 of 271)  
 
  295.48 in reply to 295.47  
 
I am devastated. 

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/8/2002 6:01 pm  
To:  Trish (MrsPentitent)    (49 of 271)  
 
  295.49 in reply to 295.46  
 
I am sorry you feel that way. It precludes discussion, which was what i sought. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/8/2002 8:11 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (50 of 271)  
 
  295.50 in reply to 295.41  
 
<<<This is treated as privately as a sexual relationship.>>> 
I will try to be tact, but I'm not to sure I can. To begin with why did you post this? Is it because you wondered if it was Biblical or was it just to find others who bel;ieve it? There is a reason this special forum you talked about is private! It is because they believe in a perversity, that doesn't match up with the Word of God! You keep saying there is no scripture to back it up, but there is no scripture that says it's wrong! One, if there is no scripture to back it up, then it doesn't need one to say it isn't wrong! If scripture states straight out to take the rod of correction to your children, which it does, doesn't it make sense it would also say the same about taking the rod to your wife, if this is what God intended? Someone is using this as an excuse to be a freak, who finds pleasure in pain. This is not of God! Seriously sister, the Bible doesn't say, "don't stick hangars through your eyes", either! Can we do this and still be of God, just because it doesn't mention it? I think not! You are being deluded by those around you and you should withdraw from those that teach this doctrine of Satan! And it's bound to be a doctrine of Satan, because it's not a doctrine of God's Holy Word!

May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/9/2002 4:13 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (51 of 271)  
 
  295.51 in reply to 295.50  
 
When i said it was treated as privately as a sexual relationship, if you go back and read my post, you will note i meant in the home. I know you dont have children, but trust me, there are private things between a man and wife that you dont share with the children. 
Why did i post this? Well, to stimulate discussion. Unfortunately, as i said, there seem to be about 3 people on this forum, so well-rounded discussion is impossible. 

I am having a hard time believeing that anything you do yourself is specifically mentioned in scripturally. I have found that most anything that is a sin is mentioned as a no-no. But we partake of lots of things that are never mentioned in the bible, as i said, computers, cell phones, sky-diving, planes, trains, and cars. 

I am a speech-pathologist...but i cannot justify that scripturally. Because i cannot, am I in sin in my profession? 

I am ending this thread with sadness...so far, i have had no reasonable discussion...in fact, i have been called names, told i am unchristian, and needed help. Now apparently i am satanic, according to you. 

Your wife was the only "real" person on here....please thank her for her kind concern. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/9/2002 6:30 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (52 of 271)  
 
  295.52 in reply to 295.1  
 
Hi Karen,

 

I can understand that you are feeling attacked but I think people are leery about this topic and for good reason. For starters it is not a Biblical lifestyle it is not even an adult lifestyle. The way that the topic was brought here would make anyone leery, you mentioned it as a discussion topic then it actually turns into an invitation to visit a forum where it is being practiced and to make matters worse it is a secret forum.

 

This kind of behavior should cause concern among Christians and I think that people have been exercising good discernment to question it and that they are right to be weary of it and to challenge you on it. You really havent presented any information on who practices it, as was requested. You did provide some information about what it is but not any information about any group that we can openly examine. This secrecy makes it seem very cult like in nature, where just enough information is given to draw a person in then the real bondage is revealed later. It actually does seem exactly like something that a cult like the Mormons would practice rather than Christianity.

 

It even sounds like something our Mormon spokesperson Bob Blaylock would do, that is discipline his wife in between his sessions of harassing the forum, and what wife would want here husband to be taking spanking lessons from a group like Bob Blaylock.

 

All the Best,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/9/2002 8:07 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (53 of 271)  
 
  295.53 in reply to 295.52  
 
Dear David, 
It is not secret cult, it is a private forum. This question was meant for discussion, and there was NEVER an invitation to join any secret society. I was speaking to another woman. That was IT. 

YOu said:***It even sounds like something our Mormon spokesperson Bob Blaylock would do, that is discipline his wife in between his sessions of harassing the forum, and what wife would want here husband to be taking spanking lessons from a group like Bob Blaylock.*** 

You know, David, I am deeply offended and disappointed in you for two reasons, and i would ask that you pray earnestly about this: 

1. How dare you link me in such an insulting way with someone i do not know and have never spoken to, 

and most importantly: 

2. HOW dare you use me to insult anyone such as you did with that paragraph??? Do you call that Christian?? I certainly dont. You intentionally belittled me and drew me into a battle that is not mine. I dont know Bob, but i feel sorry for him if you must use me as a weapon. 

YOu know David, you told me this was an interesting topic and that lots of people in "chat" thought so...gee, where are they all? Why was that said in an email? Why do you suddenly attack me? 

Goodbye david, 

karen 


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/9/2002 8:25 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (54 of 271)  
 
  295.54 in reply to 295.53  
 
Hi Karen,

 

Let me make a clarification, I got your two topics mixed up, actually it was your topic about submission that received the encouraging comments and not this topic.

 

And yes I was making a point that it is cult like behavior and not the behavior of Freedom and Maturity that are associated with a relationship with Jesus.

 

It still seems like you are being reluctant to honestly discuss a topic that you started and I hope that you are not offended because people are questioning what you are posting here. You seem to be presenting yourself as someone who is above being challenged and that is not right.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 4:07 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (55 of 271)  
 
  295.55 in reply to 295.54  
 
David, 
I do not mind being challenged...i DO mind name-calling. I do not mind open discussion. Ask me anything. Where have i minded being challenged..UNLESS you call name calling and referring to me as a Mormon and using me to bash someone "challenging". In fact, i notice in your post you never addressed that. I think you owe me an apology for that inappropriate attempt to use me that way. 

I will answer any questions as honestly as possible, IF they are actually questions. So, go ahead, please ask. I havent been actually asked anything yet...i have just been called names. Please, post a list of questions..i will be honest and clear. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/10/2002 5:29 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (56 of 271)  
 
  295.56 in reply to 295.55  
 
Hi Karen,

 

I didnt call you a Mormon but by your defending Bob Blaylock and supporting Mormonism you align yourself with Mormonism and you are making yourself out to be a Mormon. If you dont want to be taken as a Mormon than dont defend them.

 

This is where I think the program of disciple that you advocate is so flawed. Because you have no problem with the woman being subject slave to a man, any man, and all men are sinners, Except for Jesus. So women are to be spanked for their alleged wrong doings yet men like Bob Blaylock cannot even be challenged or held accountable for what they do and teach.

 

Mormonism is Evil it is pure Satan worship. Mormons teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers, and that Satan is to be worshiped every bit as much as Jesus, this is the ugliest of Blasphemy to Christians. Mormons constantly defend Satan because it is Satan that said that people could become gods and that is the teaching of Mormonism. Jesus is the Loving God who entered into Humanity to pay for the sins of humanity. Satan is the devil who deceived the woman into sin and rebellion against God.

 

If anything needs a good disciplined spanking it is the Lies of Mormonism!

 

True love is not just physical discipline but it is Spiritual discipline as well. Mormons like Bob Blaylock are responsible for teaching lies and sending people to hell. True love is telling people about the Only Son of God the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only way to Salvation.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/10/2002 5:31 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (57 of 271)  
 
  295.57 in reply to 295.55  
 
Hi Karen,

 

My question is, where is the mans accountability for what he does and teaches?

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 6:29 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (58 of 271)  
 
  295.58 in reply to 295.56  
 
Beyond all else, WHERE did i once defend Mormons or Mormonism. In one of my first posts i specifically stated that i thought Mormonism was a cult. Actually, I am a Presbyterian. So quote my exact words...where did i even DISCUSS Mormonism???? In my first posts, I did object to the name calling and you emailed me and thanked me. 
David, your first paragraph is a blatent untruth. My post has NOTHING to do with Mormonism!!!! 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 6:31 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (59 of 271)  
 
  295.59 in reply to 295.57  
 
I believe that the man is accountable to God. My personal belief is that man is the head of woman, and God is the head of man. As long as the man is walking with the Lord and studying His word and listening to Him, then the woman is to be in submission, and the man is the head of the household and accountable to God. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  StevenJn316   1/10/2002 11:09 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (60 of 271)  
 
  295.60 in reply to 295.59  
 
I suppose one could make a case that the Bible does not forbid the purchase of the January 2002 Hustler, since it is not specifically mentioned as forbidden. 
But of course there is plenty of Scripture forbidding the looking at women with lust, putting the unclean before our eyes...etc. 

So here... the Bible is clear the husband is to love his wife. Love is defined very clearly for us in 1 Cor 13, and nowhere can we find in 1 Cor 13 an allowance for a man hitting his wife, whatever the motivation or consent. 

The husband and wife are one flesh, (NOT using flesh in the fallen Adamic nature usage - but rather as one BODY) and we are told the body is nourished and cherished... 

Godly Men are specifically forbidden from being strikers in the pastoral epistles.. 

And of course, Jesus is the example of a husband's love for his bride...where do we EVER see Jesus striking his disciples as a means of educating them...for remember, discipline is a means of education (discipline/disciple)..which is why the discipline of children is so crucial..to educate them as to right and wrong. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 11:28 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (61 of 271)  
 
  295.61 in reply to 295.60  
 
Steven 
First, please allow me to thank you for your courteous post. They appear to be in short supply here. 

You said: *****I suppose one could make a case that the Bible does not forbid the purchase of the January 2002 Hustler, since it is not specifically mentioned as forbidden. 
But of course there is plenty of Scripture forbidding the looking at women with lust, putting the unclean before our eyes...etc. **** 

I agree 100% 

****Godly Men are specifically forbidden from being strikers in the pastoral epistles..**** 

Again, i agree....and someone told me that a striker is one who hits with his fists. That is not what i mean. 

****And of course, Jesus is the example of a husband's love for his bride...where do we EVER see Jesus striking his disciples as a means of educating them...for remember, discipline is a means of education (discipline/disciple)..which is why the discipline of children is so crucial..to educate them as to right and wrong. **** 

This confuses me...please explain. On the one hand, you appear to say that Jesus never struck to educate. On the other hand you seem to say that it is important to strike children to educate them. 

I personally do not have an issue regarding the consensual use of spanking in a marital relationship, but I understand your point of view. 

Karen 


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   1/10/2002 1:01 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (62 of 271)  
 
  295.62 in reply to 295.61  
 
First, there is no reason to infer a striker is one who hits with the fists..in fact, one can look through a quick greek study and see the word is derived from a word meaning the idea of flattening out, which actually sounds more like spanking than fisticuffs. 
In either case, that is not my main point, which was really the issue of 1 Cor 13 and the definition of love - which I don't think you addressed. But that is where the vast majority of my apologetic would rest. 

As to the children issue, I see where you made the inference but in fact I do NOT think it is necessary to spank a child to discipline/educate them. In fact, the spare the rod verse I think is used too directly and should be thought more of as discipline in general and not a command to spank...I support that view with Paul using the same experession speaking to the rebellious church at Corinth and the need for him to come bringing discipline (i.e. a rod, 1 Cor 4:21)..certainly we do not imagine the apostle coming to beat on the flock.... 

My main purpose in contrast had to do with children needing to LEARN right from wrong, as they otherwise do not know. An example might be running into the street without looking....nothing happens if no cars are coming so the kid does not understand why the parent is so upset....he does it again, and the parent is still upset. 

Finally, the parent makes a discipline severe enough that the child will not run into the street so they do not experience the discipline. Eventually, the child is old enough to understand WHY this was such a big deal, but for the immediate time the goal is just to avoid that discipline. 

There is a difference between discipline and punishment, in terms of the goal. You seem to describe a form of punishment, and if in fact the idea is truly as a form of discipline (the spouse truly did not understand what was required) nevertheless, the spouse is old enough to understand if it is explained, and a physical spanking would not be necessary...much like say the teenager as compared to the toddler earlier. A parent still punishes teenagers, but not by means of spanking, and not what I would call 'discipline' either. 

I hope it does not sound like I am splitting semantic hairs here, but I do think specific words have specific meanings, and should be used accordingly...not everything is a synonym - especially discipline and punishment. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 1:13 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (63 of 271)  
 
  295.63 in reply to 295.62  
 
Thank you again for your comments. 
My inference about the word "striker" was actually taken from someone on this forum...if it is incorrect, I bow to your superior knowledge on that point. 

I personally to not believe in the corporal punishment of children, for various reasons, but this is not particularly what we are discussing. 

The overall philosophy behind DD, as I understand it, appears to be that it IS in fact a loving form of discipline (not punishment) and or correction between a husband and wife. Many of the women describe feeling reassured, loved, and secure in their husbands' love following such an administration. Many describe needing such in the early parts of their marriages and then growing in maturity and in their relationships until it becomes very infrequent. 

It appears to me to be a way of ending unpleasantness, and often in "cleaning the slate" so to speak. 

I hope i am answering your questions, if i am not clear please let me know.... 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   1/10/2002 1:41 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (64 of 271)  
 
  295.64 in reply to 295.63  
 
Again, I go back to 1 Cor 13. If I was pastoring such a couple I would insist on specific instances as to when this was merited out and for why. I think that would reveal a lot. 
I am not a paid psychologist, but having studied the Bible as well as human behavior I do understand a few things. You mentioned that certain women feel loved, more secure (forgive me if I misquote having not pasted your words) etc. from such a process....which would lead me to question what type of childhood they had, especially the relationship with their fathers. I would be VERY direct in my questions to the husband (alone without the wife's presence) as to his role in all this, but to the wife I would seek to show her the acceptance Jesus has for her just as she is... 

THIS NEXT IS MY MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF THIS POST. 

I do not subsrcibe to the idea of pennance. If I do wrong, I confess my sins to the Lord, and ask his forgiveness and I am promised in the Word I will be forgiven by the shed blood of Christ. I do not have to ALSO crawl and pray on my knees for one mile or any such thing. However, many Christians feel they NEED this pain to truly be forgiven, and thus practice pennance. But they are incorrect as to what the Bible teaches and their acceptance as a child of God. 

Since the Lord/church relationship is used in the marital relationship, the same could be said. A wife need only ask forgiveness from her spouse and he MUST grant it (as ordered by Jesus), and while she may feel the NEED for physical discipline, the husband should never do so and should rather seek to show her how much he loves his wife, unconditionally, as Christ loves the church. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/10/2002 2:05 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (65 of 271)  
 
  295.65 in reply to 295.64  
 
 Hi Steven,

 

Excellent Point Superbly Presented!!

 

I think you really hit on a heart of this matter.

 

Thanks again.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 2:14 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (66 of 271)  
 
  295.66 in reply to 295.64  
 
Thank you for your wise opinions. I will certainly take them under advisement. I must say one thing...i do not believe, (although i am certainly not the spokesperson for all this) that the couples believe the wife must do this to be forgiven. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 2:14 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (67 of 271)  
 
  295.67 in reply to 295.65  
 
Yeah, David, and he didnt even get rude or call me a Mormon. Were you planning to apologize for that? 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/10/2002 2:38 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (68 of 271)  
 
  295.68 in reply to 295.67  
 
Yes, I was planning on apologizing.

 

I was just trying to determine what exactly is being advocated since no one else had heard of this teaching either.

 

I would actually feel really bad if someone, man or woman, visited this forum and went away thinking that the woman is anything less than an equal to her husband in every way, especially in the eyes of God.

 

I apologize for offending you, and thank you for all of your valuable input and discussion. I do hope that you and Everyone who has participated in this topic still feels free to post and discuss issues here on this forum.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/10/2002 2:56 pm  
To:  ALL   (69 of 271)  
 
  295.69 in reply to 295.27  
 
Grace and peace to you all, 
At the risk of getting my self in a heated debate.... 

I don't think "striker" fits the context. 

From the web site of the blue letter bible I got the following... 

4131 plektes {plake'-tace} 

from 4141;; n m 

AV - striker 2; 2 

1) bruiser, ready for a blow 
2) a pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome person 

This is the word translated "striker" in I Timothy. It would appear that what was intended was actually the second defintion, because the first definition seems redundant to the "brawler" mentioned just a few words later. 

My view... 
Without scripture to directly condemn an act, I would lean to this fitting under the marriage bed is undefiled category, and apply the Romans 14:23 taught concept to it. 

On a sad note, do any of us qualify as "not a quarrelsome person"?

The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 3:03 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (70 of 271)  
 
  295.70 in reply to 295.69  
 
Thank you. I believe i agree with you completely... 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 3:05 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (71 of 271)  
 
  295.71 in reply to 295.68  
 
David, believe it or not, I am a feminist (ooo that word) in that i believe completely that men and women are equal in the eyes of God and should be in the eyes of man also. 
karen 

ps...and thank you for the apology 


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/10/2002 6:36 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (72 of 271)  
 
  295.72 in reply to 295.63  
 
Isn't that need to be punished or the 
need to punish called S & M ? It's 
called Sadism and Masochism. It is 
not of God. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/10/2002 8:15 pm  
To:  123four   (73 of 271)  
 
  295.73 in reply to 295.72  
 
I am not discussing S&M...it has no place here, and i dont know enough about it to discuss it with you. And i thought you had kindly ended our discussion. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/10/2002 8:36 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (74 of 271)  
 
  295.74 in reply to 295.73  
 
Hi Karen,

 

I know that it is your desire and mine to make this forum a kindler and a gentler forum, so how about a little kinder and a little gentler.

 

Thank You, \o/

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   1/10/2002 8:49 pm  
To:  ALL   (75 of 271)  
 
  295.75 in reply to 295.69  
 
Without scripture to directly condemn an act, I would lean to this fitting under the marriage bed is undefiled category 
_____________________________________________________________ 
I commented earlier on the directly condemning aspect of Scripture and how that can open a can of worms...however the verse above mentioned (Hebrews 13:4) can not possibly apply for a simple reason. 
We are to understand this behavior is of NO SEXUAL context. Therefore, the marriage bed being undefiled is out since that verse contrasts with adultery and whoremongering.. 

"Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" - Heb 13:4 

Put next to passages such as 1 Cor 7 (which many reference Bibles do) this verse makes sense. The Bible speaks often of the benefits of the single life over the married one, yet sexual relations in the marriage bed are certainly not a sin between one husband and one wife. But sexual relations with a whore or other married person certainly are...be it the same exact act, it is who the act is with. 

However, even that Hebrews verse does not allow for what does not glorify God in the marriage bed. The Bible is clear that ALL we do must glorify God (Col 3:17) God has designed our body parts with different purposes...for example, the skin has pain receptors to help prevent further injury to the body - so you move your hand off a hot rock before you do major damage etc. God did not intend the pain receptors to provide a perverse sexual thrill, and so a husband and wife who practice S&M are certainly not glorifying God, and it is an abuse of this marriage bed being undefiled verse to allow for such behavior. Likewise, using parts of the body in ways not designed naturally...(as Paul discusses in another context in Romans One) even between consenting husband and wife, does not glorify God and the Hebrews verse is not an allowance of same. I am being discreet for the sake of the board, but we can imagine some examples. 

But again, this is way off topic since the domestic discipline idea discussed we are told is of no sexual nature whatsoever. My point in doing so is to eliminate the Hebrews 13:4 verse from allowing this. 

I agree the striker issue is out of context, but as I have said in earlier posts, there can be no argument that the husband is to love his wife, and what constitutes love is defined for us in 1 Cor 13.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/11/2002 4:14 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (76 of 271)  
 
  295.76 in reply to 295.74  
 
I do NOT believe it. You are actually saying that to ME?? 
David, sometimes i wonder if you are actually two people. Sometimes you say things like you said in this post. Yet you stood back and watched while people called me names, you called me a Mormon for your own gain, and you actually LIED and said i was supporting Mormons. Then when i caught you out, you apologized for "offending me" but never actually apologized for outright lieing. 

You want a kinder gentler forum, lead by example. You have never once heard me call ONE person a name. If you read the other post by 1234, HE said he was ending the discussion. 

I dont know a thing about S&M David, so i am not qualified to enter into his discussion. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/11/2002 9:02 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (77 of 271)  
 
  295.77 in reply to 295.75  
 
Steven, 
Grace and peace to you 

Is there a passage that describes what does and does not glorify God in the marriage bed? I see many principles in scripture, i.e., sexual relations outside of marriage does not. But I have not seen definitive statements. I think it is obscure for a purpose, and that purpose is freedom. What the Holy Spirit does not convict us on (as is not directly contrary to His word) is in the area of freedom, to me then the principle of Romans 14:23 applies. 

>God did not intend the pain receptors to provide a perverse sexual thrill, and so a husband and wife who practice S&M are certainly not glorifying God, and it is an abuse of this marriage bed being undefiled verse to allow for such behavior. 

Your point of not using skin's pain receptors for their natural function, but using them unnaturally, is a very similar (almost identical) argument that I have heard Catholics use against any form of birth control, i.e., it is not natural and therefore does not glorify God. So where do we draw the line on what is natural and what is not in that sense? 

>Likewise, using parts of the body in ways not designed naturally...(as Paul discusses in another context in Romans One) even between consenting husband and wife, does not glorify God and the Hebrews verse is not an allowance of same. 

Romans 1 that you refer to, is specifically talking about homosexual behavior, as the context shows. So I don't see how that applies to what a man and his wife do. 

As to using the body in ways it was not designed to be used, then do we consider sports like baseball anti-God (because a man's arm was never designed to throw a ball the way a pitcher does)? Does it make football perverse because of the pain factor when too 300lb bodies moving at high speed collide? 

I want to be clear, I am not specifically condoning any activity. I am asking questions. But I am also not going to quickly judge an activity, unless there is good reason to. 

I too believe in limitations to Hebrews 13:4. When it speaks of the marriage bed, it is speaking of a very specific set of circumstances, and anything allowed there may not be allowed in other circumstances (and often isn't). Sleeping being one exception I can up with. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   1/11/2002 9:22 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (78 of 271)  
 
  295.78 in reply to 295.63  
 

Dear Karen..... 

This a very peculiar notion of what constuitutes a relationship between husband and wife. There are no biblical scriptures that suggest or condone "spanking" of a female adult. Question, before a woman is married does the father also have the responsibily/authority to "spank" his adult female child as well??? Why or why not? 
It is very sound Christain practice not to make doctrine or disciplines on where scripture is silent. There are NO references anywhere in scripture for husbands to spank their wives....if it were important/necessary God would have placed a principle or clear example of it in scripture. 

The group who is encorporating DD into church teachings and discilpines sounds very "sectish" in their practices of christianity. The the women who request to be "spanked" are not following any Godly women examples of the Bible because there are no examples of this taking place in the bible. BTW just the woman having to suggest this to the husband sounds like she is running the show anyway!! 

To be frank, people (men and woman) can suggest anything to eachother....it doesn't make it 'Godly' just because it is requested. I could ask my husband to shoot me with a gun as a form of disciplne too..."guns" arent't mentioned in the Bible, neither is shooting of the wife etc. soooo by your definition since it's not forbidden or mentioned not to, in the Bible and if I suggest/request it, it's okay for hubby to shoot me with a gun to discipline me. 

I think you are mixed up with "kooks",no amount of biblical counsel will be accepted by a group like this because their eyes and hearts are closed to reading and recieving the word of God in context. They want to make doctrine from nothing, literally no verses, no context, to support their viewpoint. 

Be very careful young woman ...you could be in danger of falling into a situatrion you will not be easily able to extract yourself out of. 

RachelsChild 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/11/2002 9:54 am  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (79 of 271)  
 
  295.79 in reply to 295.78  
 
Dear Rachel, Thank you for your post. I have a couple of comments: ****Question, before a woman is married does the father also have the responsibily/authority to "spank" his adult female child as well??? Why or why not? ***** I do not believe so, because while we are called to honor our parents i do not believe we are called to submit to our fathers in the same way that we are to submit to our husbands..."your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you". ****It is very sound Christain practice not to make doctrine or disciplines on where scripture is silent. There are NO references anywhere in scripture for husbands to spank their wives....if it were important/necessary God would have placed a principle or clear example of it in scripture.***** I agree, but it goes both ways. You should not make doctrine against something when the scripture is silent either. You may be as much in error as the other way. And again, I am a speech therapist. There is no scripture to support that whatsoever. Yet i feel that it is an important and necessary thing....yet God is silent on the topic. ****I could ask my husband to shoot me with a gun as a form of disciplne too..."guns" arent't mentioned in the Bible, neither is shooting of the wife etc. soooo by your definition since it's not forbidden or mentioned not to, in the Bible and if I suggest/request it, it's okay for hubby to shoot me with a gun to discipline me.**** However, shooting someone IS illegal and therefore not permissable. We are to follow the law. While assault is illegal, consensual spanking is not illegal...at least where i live. ***Be very careful young woman*** Thank you, i will, however, I am probably older than you. *smiles* karen 
  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   1/11/2002 11:07 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (80 of 271)  
 
  295.80 in reply to 295.79  
 
Sorry, according to your profile, I am considerably older in years then you. ;0) 
BTW scripture does make it clear parents can physically discipline their children (under certain conditions) for the purpose of teaching them right from wrong and to punish wrong behavior. Any physical punishment involves pain of some kind...a spanking of a child on the behind produces a stinging sensation to the skin. If it did not produce pain why else would me administer it? The spanking, (stinging) is to reinforce in the child's mind that consequences to wrong behavior produces a "stinging" effect. Where in the Bible does it even suggest a husband is to physically correct/discipline his wife as children are to be disciplined? We are told as children to obey our parents and as parents to discipline our children. Honor (respect) and submission are not the same as obedience and discipline. 

Actually, shooting someone ( I didn't say killing someone)who consents to be shot, it is not illegal...If my hubby shot me and I did not press charges, at best he could be charged with careless discharge of a weapon. He could stab and beat me too and unless I press charges, nothing could be done to him. Because soemthing is legal or illegal does in and of itself not make it right or wrong. "Consenting" adults are allowed to do all sorts of things to/with eachother...some good, some evil, some legal but not moral, some moral but not legal etc. 

There is no doctrine being promoted about NOT spanking your wife...the doctrine promoted is for husbands and wives to love and respect eachother as "joint heirs"...fulfilling marriage roles as God ordained them to be husband and wife not husband and child-wife. A husband spanking his wife is behaving as a father to a child ...this practice is God's order for marriage gone wrong. Does a father have sex with his child??? NO!!! Perhaps if these husbands want to behave as fathers to their wives they should carry out all the requirements of fatherhood and stop having sex with their children, er wives! God is not silent on the distinct roles and rules of behavior between children and adults...it's VERY clear. 

You know several years ago I had a friend who got into the "Gentle Women/Spirit" (or something called like that) movement. All of a sudden she's wearing a black net on her head, and cloths to her ankles, no makeup etc. all the while she laid down the rules to hubby how the home order was to change because they were going to have a 'godly' home! 

There are all sorts of movement/sects/cults out there. Believe me there is nothing new under the heavens (actually Solomon said that) And women are targetted by satan for deception...so again be very careful in considering to practice ANY disciplines that have NO scriptual references or examples to follow....silence is NOT a license to do something. 

As for your being a speech therapist...it's a healing art...Jesus physically touched tongues and loosed them.... so scripture isn't totally silent on your profession. 

Regards, 
RachelsChild 


 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  karen (karen10051)   1/11/2002 11:19 am  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (81 of 271)  
 
  295.81 in reply to 295.80  
 
Dear Rachel, 
I am not sure if you read the original posts i used that showed the "justifications" used with this lifestyle. They are plainer than I. 

Just a couple of points: 
***Honor (respect) and submission are not the same as obedience and discipline*** 

I agree, but i think there is an aspect of obediance in submission. 

****Actually, shooting someone ( I didn't say killing someone)who consents to be shot, it is not illegal...If my hubby shot me and I did not press charges, at best he could be charged with careless discharge of a weapon. He could stab and beat me too and unless I press charges, nothing could be done to him. Because soemthing is legal or illegal does in and of itself not make it right or wrong. "Consenting" adults are allowed to do all sorts of things to/with eachother...some good, some evil, some legal but not moral, some moral but not legal etc. **** 

well, i dont know where you live, but where i live, if he stabbed me or beat me or shot me, he would be charged with or without my consent. My point is that we are to obey the laws of the land...and to disobey the laws is not acceptable. 

I respect your opinions. Thank you 


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/11/2002 7:10 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (82 of 271)  
 
  295.82 in reply to 295.81  
 
AS regardes to S & M. S & M called by 
any other name is still S & M. Practically 
speaking, if it walks like a duck, talks 
like a duck, looks like a duck, then is 
it a duck? 
God is not mocked. Evil is evil to Him 
no matter what it is called. Sinners 
want to find some scripture to twist 
to MAKE it say it is ok to do evil. 
All a person has there is twisted 
scripture. Without the Holy Spirit of 
God within, a person can't understand 
the holiness of God, nor can he/she 
understand the scriptures. This gets 
people into serious trouble with God. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/12/2002 5:13 am  
To:  123four   (83 of 271)  
 
  295.83 in reply to 295.82  
 
Thank you for your remarks. I think i meant that i dont know anything about S&M, so i cannot comment on it. I dont dispute what you say, i am saying i dont know enough about it to comment. 
Perhaps you could share your knowledge of S&M, as it is a discussion you seem to wish to pursue, and perhaps i could comment. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/12/2002 8:50 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (84 of 271)  
 
  295.84 in reply to 295.83  
 
You are welcome to comment. The scripture 
supercedes all human knowledge of evil 
practices and this is my knowledge on it. 
The Word of God is true. It is pure. 
The Word of God is clear on evil and clear 
on obedience to God. As you say, S & M 
has no place on this board for discussion 
as it is a Christian forum. Where God 
is concerned, it's always best to recognize 
what He says and to do it. There is no 
way to play a game with God and win. It 
will only be to your own hurt if you 
try. I was alerted by a Christian friend 
that this hurting of wives is nothing 
more than S&M in disguise, but very 
thinly disguised at that. It is not in 
the plan of God for a Godly family. 
It is not in God's plan for any human 
on earth.  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/12/2002 1:02 pm  
To:  123four   (85 of 271)  
 
  295.85 in reply to 295.84  
 
Hi 123four,

 

Excellent Insight!

 

I agree it is twisting Scripture towards mans beliefs to derive that spanking an adult is acceptable.

 

To me striking in the marriage is not at all the Biblical relationship the Bible instructs us on.

 

Again, we, at least I, have no clue who is practicing in this as it sounds very un-Christian like and very cult like and I would stay far away from it at all costs.

 

You make a good point that it takes the Holy Spirit to instruct us in His Scriptures and we are required to Seek God for the meaning of His words not to add our own meaning to what God means.

 

Also in this discipline it looks like the woman is actually cut off from God as she is to look for instruction and correction from man and not from God.

 

Thanks Again,

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/12/2002 2:13 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (86 of 271)  
 
  295.86 in reply to 295.85  
 
Yes, exactly. This would make her husband 
her intercessor and advocate, taking 
away the sweet relationship she could 
have with God herself!!! It's a strange 
agenda and from the git-go smacks of 
satanic influence. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/12/2002 6:32 pm  
To:  123four   (87 of 271)  
 
  295.87 in reply to 295.86  
 
Hi, 
Well, if you say so. I am not acquainted with S&M so i wouldnt know. This is not a cult...here are a couple of the sites on Delphi: 

http://forums.delphiforums.com/christianspank/start 

http://forums.delphiforums.com/cliocms/start 

Also, the women on these forums seem to have very close relationships with God...as far as i can see. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/12/2002 8:48 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (88 of 271)  
 
  295.88 in reply to 295.87  
 
Not interested in S & M. YOu shouldn't 
be posting those on a Christian forum. 
I don't care what the women call them 
selves.  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/13/2002 5:51 am  
To:  123four   (89 of 271)  
 
  295.89 in reply to 295.88  
 
Huh? Did you even go to them? The second one is titled "Christian Women and Relationships..." How is that S&M?? At least know what you are talking about before you spout. As a matter of fact, the second one has NOTHING to do with DD, i just added it to see if people even bothered to look at what i posted before condemning it. Thank you for revealing that you didnt even look, but decided that it was evil just in your wee mind. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/13/2002 4:53 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (90 of 271)  
 
  295.90 in reply to 295.89  
 
123Four is right! It is unscriptural, unGodly, and has no place in a Christian family! This demeans the woman if she doesn't like it, and show her interest in a sexual fetish {Lust] if she does! You will never get anyone to agree because there is no scripture to back it! As for these women saying that it's acceptable to God, and that they are devout Christians; just remember, the Devil can quote scripture and appear as an Angel of Light! Therefore his unGodly minions can too! If Gods Word doesn't say it; it's best that you don't play it!
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/13/2002 7:17 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (91 of 271)  
 
  295.91 in reply to 295.90  
 
First of all, can you stop with the dumb exclamation marks? They really detract from what you say, and alot of your meaning is lost because you look manic. 
I dont know a darned thing about S&M, and i would not think that just because the women desire this in their marriages that they "like" it like a sexual fetish. Although, i did think that any type of sexual desire between a husband and wife in their own bed was ok, but thats another thread altogether. 

Frankly, I dont like vegetables, blood tests, or other assorted things that i do for my own good. I would assume this falls under that catagory. 

In any event, i find it somewhat amusing that this was condemned out of hand and that everyone asked me for some supportive documents (which werent read) or websites (which were never explored) but simply decided to ignorantly condemn. 

Unfortunately, 1234 is completely preoccupied with S&M, and you cant get his mind off it...too bad, because i dont know much about it and it limits the discussion. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/13/2002 10:53 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (92 of 271)  
 
  295.92 in reply to 295.91  
 
S&M means Sadists and Masochists. Masochists enjoy being hurt and Sadists enjoy hurting them. And just for the record whatever you and your husband do in a sexual connotation is private and shouldn't be discussed with anyone, not even family! As a Godly woman, your personal business is between you, your husband, and God! Do you tell or ask your Pastor about this? And if not, why are you advertising it here?
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/14/2002 4:09 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (93 of 271)  
 
  295.93 in reply to 295.92  
 
****And just for the record whatever you and your 
husband do in a sexual connotation is private and shouldn't be discussed with anyone, not even family! As a Godly woman, your personal business is between you, your husband, and God! Do you tell or ask your Pastor about this? And if not, why are you advertising it here?**** 
Huh??? i never said a word about what we do in private. I was responding to your statement in your previous post about the woman lusting after her husband and then i went on to say that i believe that the women who practice DD have no sexual pleasure from it but find it necessary like eating vegetables. 

I dont believe anyone actually reads my posts. At least take me to task for something i actually say. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/14/2002 2:06 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (94 of 271)  
 
  295.94 in reply to 295.93  
 
Frankly Karen, your posts are quite 
bizarre. Do you know anything about 
God or scriptures that we could discuss, 
share with you? 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/14/2002 2:17 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (95 of 271)  
 
  295.95 in reply to 295.93  
 
Does it seem to you like this subject 
that you are in thrall with has been 
basically hashed and rehashed enough? 
There are some really good threads 
right here on this forum. I am reading 
the Daily Devotions from Oswald Chambers 
writings now and really getting refreshed. 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/14/2002 2:28 pm  
To:  123four   (96 of 271)  
 
  295.96 in reply to 295.95  
 
Well for once we agree....i have been bashed quite enough. If you notice, i only responded to posts at this point... 
I dont understand why my posts are bizarre...although i could see where you might think they were if you didnt actually read them. Could you point out a case of "bizarre"....?? 

Anyway, thanks for your kind offer, but i know the Lord quite well... 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/14/2002 2:38 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (97 of 271)  
 
  295.97 in reply to 295.96  
 
No, I won't. Far too much has been said 
already. I should have ended the part 
of my conversation when I said I was 
going to-on this subject, that is.  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/14/2002 2:40 pm  
To:  123four   (98 of 271)  
 
  295.98 in reply to 295.97  
 
Ok..well, as i said, i have been bashed quite enough, so i think we agree...and frankly, no one bothered to read what i posted or what i wrote...no one even really bothered to read my responses to their questions...which is probably why i sounded bizarre... 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 6:09 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (99 of 271)  
 
  295.99 in reply to 295.51  
 
I am new to this forum and I confess to being surprised at the topic, but happily so. 
It was not that long ago that I posted a long post on "Applying scripture to my sexuality" which was originally a response to "gay christians" who were afraid to honestly look at scripture. I posted them to a couple of different Christian forums. 

I should probably repost it here. 

While there is a difference in BDSM and DD there is an overlap, rather than a border between the two. 

What surprises me is that the evangelicals and the fundamentalist can be just as cavalier with scripture as the "gay christians." 

Karen, I understand how frustrated you are. Your digust is well founded.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 6:18 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (100 of 271)  
 
  295.100 in reply to 295.52  
 
Greetings, 
>>I can understand that you are feeling attacked but I think people are leery about this topic and for good reason. For starters it is not a Biblical lifestyle<< 

unproven assumption 

>>it is not even an adult lifestyle.<< 

second unproven assumption. 

>>The way that the topic was brought here would make anyone leery, you mentioned it as a discussion topic then it actually turns into an invitation to visit a forum where it is being practiced and to make matters worse it is a secret forum.<< 

Given the Judgmentality, correction: the extra-biblical judgmentality, why should we be surprised that they would want it private? 

>>This kind of behavior should cause concern among Christians and I think that people have been exercising good discernment to question it and that they are right to be weary of it and to challenge you on it. You really havent presented any information on who practices it, as was requested.<< 

I am not sure what you mean here, I have read has been fairly good info. As to WHO practices it, I am not sure what you are asking. 

>>You did provide some information about what it is but not any information about any group that we can openly examine. This secrecy makes it seem very cult like in nature, where just enough information is given to draw a person in then the real bondage is revealed later. It actually does seem exactly like something that a cult like the Mormons would practice rather than Christianity.<< 

If you wish, I can e-mail some links to you of various Christian Groups who will discuss with you, but will not be tolerant of unthinking disrespect. 

The offer is made. 


 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 6:29 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (101 of 271)  
 
  295.101 in reply to 295.66  
 
No, there is no issue of forgiveness here, it is one of Chastening. 
You know, like God who chastens his church?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/18/2002 6:42 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (102 of 271)  
 
  295.102 in reply to 295.100  
 
Hi,

 

I think you used a different logon to post your message I saw it posted on many other Christian forums and recently deleted it here along with a few other topics.

 

Thanks in advance for not reposting it.

 

I do decline the invitation to discuss the topic by e-mail. I prefer for Anything Christian to be discussed in the open. Jesus said that Christianity is to be practiced with child like Faith and Trust and to be practiced in the open and not in hidden places.

 

Again it should be a Tremendous Warring to anyone who is reading this that any activity that is done in secret and claims to be Christian should be avoided at all cost. 

 

God Bless You,

David - A Disciple of Jesus!



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 6:45 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (103 of 271)  
 
  295.103 in reply to 295.69  
 
Then the issue is one of whom is struck and why? 
Surely you would not lable a striker one who chastens his children? (Don't even try to say the rod is something other than and insturment of chastening. If you know the roots of the words, you know better.) 

How about Jesus? Surely he would be disqualified from consideration for his shameful display of physical violence at the Temple? 

We can also take a look at Nehemiah. 

Neh 13:25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, 

Surely a man who reviles, curses, strikes and rips the hair out of his congregation is NOT fit to be a Bishop.... 

I think you see a smattering of the problems your interpretation gives us.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 6:47 pm  
To:  123four   (104 of 271)  
 
  295.104 in reply to 295.72  
 
While that is not what she is talking about please provide us with Chapter and verse of your assertion. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 6:50 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (105 of 271)  
 
  295.105 in reply to 295.74  
 
While I am kind of new here, isn't this an amazing thing for you of all people to say to her? 
Her response was not half as rude as yours, and while I am hoping that I will see an official and prolific apology to her further up the thread, I am disappointed not to see one yet.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 6:55 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (106 of 271)  
 
  295.106 in reply to 295.77  
 
My question regarding pain receptors is this. 
If his reasoning is correct, are Jalopeno peppers sinful? 

How about football? 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 7:11 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (107 of 271)  
 
  295.107 in reply to 295.90  
 
>>123Four is right! It is unscriptural, unGodly, and has no place in a Christian family!<< 
I have yet to see reasoned rebutal to the scriptural rational presented. What I have seen is unreasoned emotional reaction by those who confuse morality with aethetics. 

Marshal your scripture and your reason and debate the point if you wish. So far very few have done this. 

>>This demeans the woman if she doesn't like it, and show her interest in a sexual fetish {Lust] if she does!<< 

So, can one LUST after ones own wife? Remember, all of what is being spoken of is in the context of licit relationships. 

>>You will never get anyone to agree because there is no scripture to back it!<< 

The Case is not conclusive either way, thank you, and to say what you have just said shows that you have not comprehended the earlier posts. 

>>As for these women saying that it's acceptable to God, and that they are devout Christians; just remember, the Devil can quote scripture and appear as an Angel of Light! Therefore his unGodly minions can too!<< 

So, now they are the devils minions? Lets here some more about how you came to that conclusion. 

>>If Gods Word doesn't say it; it's best that you don't play it!<< 

Who are you Now? Rev. Jesse Jackson? Rhyme is cute, but it is not reasoning or a foundation for theology. Thank you.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 7:13 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (108 of 271)  
 
  295.108 in reply to 295.91  
 
>>Unfortunately, 1234 is completely preoccupied with S&M, and you cant get his mind off it...too bad, because i dont know much about it and it limits the discussion.<< 
"Me thinks the Lady doth protest too much." (?)
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 7:19 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (109 of 271)  
 
  295.109 in reply to 295.93  
 
>>I never said a word about what we do in private. I was responding to your statement in your previous post about the woman lusting after her husband and then i went on to say that i believe that the women who practice DD have no sexual pleasure from it but find it necessary like eating vegetables. 
I dont believe anyone actually reads my posts. At least take me to task for something i actually say.<< 

Well, illiteracy IS a big problem in America today. 

That being said, from what I have seen so far, you are the strongest, brightest, most articulate woman here. And if you are the proponent FOR DD, and those who oppose it are so irrational in their understanding of it, please know know that this thread is a great "commercial" for DD
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 7:24 pm  
To:  123four   (110 of 271)  
 
  295.110 in reply to 295.97  
 
Well a fair question to ask of you and the women who have reacted so violently to the Idea of DD. 
Do you wear a headcovering to church? If so do you make it clear to those around you that it is not just a fashion statement but a reflection of God's direction that you be under that Authority of Your Husband? 

I say this because I observe lots of evangelical women giving lipservice to headship, but their hearts are far from it.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/18/2002 9:32 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (111 of 271)  
 
  295.111 in reply to 295.102  
 
>>I think you used a different logon to post your message I saw it posted on many other Christian forums and recently deleted it here along with a few other topics.<< 
?? 

>>Thanks in advance for not reposting it.<< 

Reposting it? You must be thinking of some other forum. Someone else might have reposted my essay here without my permission, but that is all. I doubt even that. 

As for having my post deleted, it was only deleted temporarily at the Protestant Christian forum because one moderator reacted badly to it and she was later overturned on appeal. 

More than likely you are thinking of something completely different as I have not seen you on too many of the other groups in which I have posted the essay. 

>>I do decline the invitation to discuss the topic by e-mail. I prefer for Anything Christian to be discussed in the open. Jesus said that Christianity is to be practiced with child like Faith and Trust and to be practiced in the open and not in hidden places.<< 

There is a little duplicity here. You say on the one hand that you want to know more, yet do not want to have this information posted, yet you are unwilling to have an open and honest discussion on forums, some of which are private (as opposed to secret) and many of which are public. 

This was a specific challange you made, and I made an offer in response. 

You seem to have your prejudices well fed. 

>>Again it should be a Tremendous Warring to anyone who is reading this that any activity that is done in secret and claims to be Christian should be avoided at all cost.<< 

Of course, I suppose you could level this same charge at Jesus for some of his "secrets" and not being willing to cast pearls before swine? 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/19/2002 1:01:00 AM ET by RTARTAN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/19/2002 4:55 am  
To:  Rtartan   (112 of 271)  
 
  295.112 in reply to 295.99  
 
Thank you so very kindly. It was unbelievable. Somehow i was even called a Mormon!! LOL Go figure. Nice to hear some kind words... 
God bless... 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/19/2002 4:57 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (113 of 271)  
 
  295.113 in reply to 295.102  
 
David, 
There is a difference between secret and private. I consider this private...do you do nothing private? 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/19/2002 4:59 am  
To:  Rtartan   (114 of 271)  
 
  295.114 in reply to 295.108  
 
I didnt come here to discuss S&M...and i couldnt get anyone on topic. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/19/2002 5:02 am  
To:  Rtartan   (115 of 271)  
 
  295.115 in reply to 295.109  
 
***That being said, from what I have seen so far, you are the strongest, brightest, most articulate woman here. And if you are the proponent FOR DD, and those who oppose it are so irrational in their understanding of it, please know know that this thread is a great "commercial" for DD*** 
Thank you very kindly for your words. It has been very frustrating, because i honestly sought open discussion, but it never seemed to get there. It degenerated into bizarre name-calling. 

I never intended it to be a commercial, simply a topic of discussion. I thank you for your rational, sane responses. Its been a first. *smiles* 

karen 


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/19/2002 8:29 am  
To:  Rtartan   (116 of 271)  
 
  295.116 in reply to 295.103  
 
RTARTAN, 
Grace and peace to you 

I am not sure why you are asking me this question. 

I don't think the term "striker" is appropriate in the I Timothy context at all. I think the term is more likely pugnacious. 

I don't think the Greek term can be applied to a Father discipling his child, Jesus, Nehemiah, or what a man and woman do for play. But my thoughts are not as important as God's thoughts, and I reserve the right to be proven wrong by scripture. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/19/2002 8:31 am  
To:  Rtartan   (117 of 271)  
 
  295.117 in reply to 295.106  
 
RTARTAN, 
Grace and peace to you. 

It seems you have my comments confused with Steven's whom I was replying to. His quotes are started by the ">" in my posts, my repsonces have no distinguishing beginning mark. 

So you questions are better suited to him, for those are similar to the ones I asked. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/20/2002 3:47 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (118 of 271)  
 
  295.118 in reply to 295.107  
 
<<<I have yet to see reasoned rebutal to the scriptural rational presented. What I have seen is unreasoned emotional reaction by those who confuse morality with aethetics.>>> 
The Bible tells the man to treat his wife as Christ treated the church. It is ludicrous to fathom Christ "spanking" the church! We are also told to follow the Word of God. 

<<<So, now they are the devils minions? Lets here some more about how you came to that conclusion.>>> 

Since it is not a part of the Word, it is not Godly. Therefore anyone that participates in something unGodly, can't very well be living for God; or they would have never started it! 

<<<debate the point if you wish.>>> 

We are to discuss the Word of God, or at least, that's what I came here for. This is not the Word of God, so it deserves no consideration or debate! 

<<<So, can one LUST after ones own wife?>>> 

Passion is of God. Passion is what you feel for your wife! Lust belongs to Satan! 

Galatians 5:16  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 

If you are of God, you don't involve yourself with lust, but passion 
which is honorable. Porn stars do what they do out of lust. What a husband does with his wife should be romance with passion. It shows the difference between the worldly and the Godly! 

James 1:15  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 

Lust brings sin and death! If this isn't enough read: 

1 John 2:16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 

Not of the Father, but is of this world. How's that for scripture to back it? 

<<<Who are you Now? Rev. Jesse Jackson?>>> 

Not hardly. For one I never commited adultery. And two, I would have to adopt a liberal attitude that disagreed with the Word of God, and then use it for my own personal gain or convenience! Liberalism about God's Word will not get one to Heaven.

May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/21/2002 6:16 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (119 of 271)  
 
  295.119 in reply to 295.116  
 
Oh, I must have responed to the wrong person. It must have been someone you were responding to? 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Rtartan   1/21/2002 6:17 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (120 of 271)  
 
  295.120 in reply to 295.117  
 
oops, yep, soooorry! 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Rtartan   1/21/2002 6:32 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (121 of 271)  
 
  295.121 in reply to 295.114  
 
>>I didnt come here to discuss S&M...and i couldnt get anyone on topic.<< 
I know. The funny thing is that on some of these Christian Forums we hear the same story repeated over and over again. 

--A married couple just want to spice things up in the bedroom and start playing around with D/s, etc., and they suddenly realize WHY their is an appeal to it. They are playing a game that shadows the Godly order of Men being the authority in the home, and the wives being submissive. 

Suddenly they realize that they have been living lives of abject rebellion and that what started as a bedroom game has actually helped to reorder their family life. 

The Joke of it all is, that some of the people here might actually approve of what we do IF they had a clue as to what we are talking about here. Of course others, as I had mentioned in my post, are probably living lives where they pay lipservice to submissiveness in wives, but the reality is far, far away from what they say. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   1/21/2002 8:58 pm  
To:  Trish (MrsPentitent)    (122 of 271)  
 
  295.122 in reply to 295.40  
 
Hi, Trish, I surely do agree with you. Just passing through the forums, and I am shocked that anyone could justify letting a husband hit her for any reason. Especially using the Bible to justify it. 
But in these last days, people will believe anything. 

Whether or not the one who opened the gate realizes it, I'm afraid there's a snake in this garden....
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/21/2002 8:59 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (123 of 271)  
 
  295.123 in reply to 295.114  
 
Now I am going to ACTUALLY reply on the subject of DD itself. 
First, we need to look at the issue of physical correction in the scripture in general. 

We should all be familiar with the scriptures that speak to the issue of punishing children, and further we should at least remember that the Law of Moses made specific provisions for the physical punishment of adults. HOPEFULLY the "scholars" here will be at least slightly familiar with it. 

We don't hear much about any specific cases of either children chastened in the home nor of the judicial application of the Rod in the Old Testament. When we get to the New Testament, we see that there are a few statements that talk about 

Acts 22:19 "`Lord,' I replied, `these men know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. 

IN this passage we see Paul mentioning that use the rod is something that WAS done in synagogue at that time. 

Acts 5:40b ...They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 
41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 

Another example that use of the rod WAS used in a religious/judicial setting. 

2 Corinthians 11:24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 

Dittos. 

Mark 13:9 "You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 

Jesus warning that the practice of beating with rods would be applied to them by those who did not believe. 

NOW, I already hear someone saying "See! It was only used unjustly against CHRISTIANS and that is proof that this is WRONG!" 

The problem is with this thinking is that the same argument could be used against CAPITAL punishment, yet capital punishment is clearly endorsed by Paul in Romans 13. It is ironic that Paul, who would be unjustly executed, should so strongly endorse the Ruler who "bears not the sword in vain." 

The unjust application of a just punishment never make the punishment itself wrong. 

Now here is a tricky passage. 

1 Corinthians 4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. 
20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. 21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? 

Now our twenty-first century ears and cultural conditioning make it nearly impossible for us to see this as anything other than figurative speach. Yet was it? It may not have been. Those who will scream the most will also be those who say that Jesus couldn't POSSIBLY have hit anybody in the Temple with that whip. 

Now, I have no desire for anyone to suggest that we reinstitute this as a mode of chruch discipline, but rather this is to quell the unfounded assertions of those who say DD is absolutely unthinkable and that their is no HINT of anysuch thing in scripture. 

Well, there is and always has been authority, responsibility and accountability given to the man for his family. Men are measured both in this life (for Church Leadership Positions) and the next for how well they have managed their families. To assume that something like DD is excluded, is just that, an unwarranted assumption. 

As I had mentioned in my previous posts, BDSM is different from DD, yet their is an overlap. Bedroom games of married couples have sometimes caused them to drift into issues of lines of authority and accountability in the home. Suddenly the game takes on new meaning. 

I find the issue to be similar to that of Children at play. Kids just think they are having FUN, but developmental psychologist tells us that it is important part of their growth and learning process. 

There are many ways we learn things, and anyone with expertise 
in training or teaching will tell you that sometimes simulations -- 
"games" -- can teach things on a level that words alone cannot reach. 

There are hosts of examples for this, but I'm sure that you can think 
of many examples and save me the trouble of typing them out. 

One can know all the theory, but have a problem internalizing it. 
This is a condition I see A LOT as it relates to submission. The 
Evangelical world is FILLED with women who still pay lipservice to 
Male Headship (of course even these are a dying breed) yet do not do 
so practically. 

If you doubt me, I can supply you with a catalogue of examples. 

I am actually coming to understand that the healthiest thing for some 
couples is to at least incorporate DD play. I think it is theoretically possible to a couple to never have a "REAL" DD session, 
but that symbolic ones would suffice. 

My own experience bears this out. Was I deeply attracted to BDSM during my "enlightened" equalitarian period? Yep, but I just thought it was an inconsequential contradiction at the time. I woke up later to a reality that I had been taught to avoid. Lots of couples have described this. 

Perhaps you could say that I am of the "Spoonful of Sugar" School of DD. 

BDSM is fun, and when a spanking is given for DD -a punishment spanking-, the sexual aspect is not totally gone, but the "fun" takes the edge off of pure punishment. I do not think there is an inherent 
contradiction between the physical felicities a married couple feels and spiritual joy. 

GOD invented sex, and he invented traditional roles. Why should it be surprising that we should find Joy in a D/s relationship? 

Artie. 

PS I had thought about posting a link to a site owned by a married Christian couple who practice DD. 

There is no nudity, graphic sexuality, etc. on the site. There is nothing that a rational christian could find that would be objectionable, yet since we have yet to see rationality, I'm afraid that someone here might fill their inbox with foam-at-the-mouth hate mail. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   1/21/2002 9:04 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (124 of 271)  
 
  295.124 in reply to 295.45  
 
I really have to wonder if they believe they are forgiven by Christ! I'd direct these women to Galatians 3, "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you," Paul begins, and asks if they who were saved by the work of the cross are now made perfect by their own efforts. 
All our sins, past, present and future, were nailed on the cross. 

WE cannot keep ourselves good enough to be saved, any more than we could make ourselves good enough to save ourselves in the first place! 

We don't need to be spanked to atone for our sins. 

I wonder if these women realize this. 

Or perhaps they do need some kind of therapy for wanting this punishment. Maybe they are needy for a father figure to make up a lack in their past.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/21/2002 9:30 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (125 of 271)  
 
  295.125 in reply to 295.118  
 
<<<<<I have yet to see reasoned rebutal to the scriptural rational presented. What I have seen is unreasoned emotional reaction by those who confuse morality with aethetics.>>>>> 

>>The Bible tells the man to treat his wife as Christ treated the church. It is ludicrous to fathom Christ "spanking" the church! We are also told to follow the Word of God.<< 
Hebrews 12 

<<<<<So, now they are the devils minions? Lets here some more about how you came to that conclusion.>>>>> 

>>Since it is not a part of the Word, it is not Godly. Therefore anyone that participates in something unGodly, can't very well be living for God; or they would have never started it!<< 

So... what ever is NOT in God's word is FOBIDDEN?? 

Try again. 

<<<<debate the point if you wish.>>>>> 

>>We are to discuss the Word of God, or at least, that's what I came here for. This is not the Word of God, so it deserves no consideration or debate!<< 

Whoa, we are talking about what GOD'S word might say about two different but somewhat related subjects. 

<<<<<So, can one LUST after ones own wife?>>>>> 

>>Passion is of God. Passion is what you feel for your wife! Lust belongs to Satan!<< 

Please differentiate Lust from Passion if you will. Please feel free to use greek sources. 

>>Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.<< 

I am not advocating that anyone do so. 

>>If you are of God, you don't involve yourself with lust, but passion which is honorable.<< 

Okay, but I suspect you are really not sure HOW do define the two? 

>>Porn stars do what they do out of lust.<< 

Agreed. 

>>What a husband does with his wife should be romance with passion.<< 

Agreed again. 

>>It shows the difference between the worldly and the Godly!<< 

Great. 

>>James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 

Lust brings sin and death! If this isn't enough read: 

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 

Not of the Father, but is of this world. How's that for scripture to back it?<< 

Please do a word study on "lust" and note that the word lust (strong desire) is also used in the positive contexts. 

It is not LUST per se that kills, it is that the lust is after evil goals. Lusting after, and consuming that lust with a neighbor is evil, whereas that same activity with your own spouse is blessed. 

There is no word in Greek that means lust in an evil sense. The same word is used in positive senses as well 

Jesus lusting to eat the Passover.... 
Paul lusting to see the Theselonians.... 
Paul lusting to be in heaven.... 

I have mentioned these before, and there are probably others that I don't have time to look up. 

<<<<<Who are you Now? Rev. Jesse Jackson?>>>>> 

>>Not hardly. For one I never commited adultery. And two, I would have to adopt a liberal attitude that disagreed with the Word of God, and then use it for my own personal gain or convenience! Liberalism about God's Word will not get one to Heaven.<< 

Good. I agree with you. 

Actually I was poking fun at your overly dramatic alliteration. 

>>May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters!<< 

and you. In a more reflective moment, I hope that you will calmly think, weigh and consider. You might be surprised at what you find?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/21/2002 9:43 pm  
To:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   (126 of 271)  
 
  295.126 in reply to 295.124  
 
Chastening and atonement are two different items. 
Hebrews 12
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   1/21/2002 11:14 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (127 of 271)  
 
  295.127 in reply to 295.126  
 
I wonder if they understand that, though. Or if they're just kinky. Some people are. But they shouldn't base it on the Bible. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/22/2002 4:07 am  
To:  Rtartan   (128 of 271)  
 
  295.128 in reply to 295.123  
 
Thank you ...you are wiser and more learned than i am Sir, and i appreciate your input. You have presented this far more clearly than i. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/22/2002 9:08 am  
To:  Rtartan   (129 of 271)  
 
  295.129 in reply to 295.123  
 
Artie, 
Grace and peace to you 

You have shown some interesting verses that show the rod for punishment was deemed acceptable by that days society. There are also verses in the OT were cities and people were described as doing heinous crimes, yet we do not consider that an endorsement by God. 

So my question is, is there a passage in scripture that endorses domestic discipline as opposed to criminal discipline or parental discipline. 

To the connection of religios discipline, remember that Israel was pretty much a theocracy, so most religious discipline was also considered criminal discipline. 

A valid point that must always be remembered is that we are to love our wives as Christ loved the church. So I guess a good question is, does Christ's love for us include discipline? (btw, if you believe it does, show the scripture ;0). 

Food for thought, to all. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 10:37 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (130 of 271)  
 
  295.130 in reply to 295.129  
 
>>You have shown some interesting verses that show the rod for punishment was deemed acceptable by that days society.<< 
yes. 

>>There are also verses in the OT were cities and people were described as doing heinous crimes, yet we do not consider that an endorsement by God.<< 

I am not sure exactly what you are thinking of. Could you elaborate? 

>>So my question is, is there a passage in scripture that endorses domestic discipline as opposed to criminal discipline or parental discipline.<< 

Not that I have been able to find. Actual references are a little thin for any of the above and Corporal Punishment is almost assumed in the OT. 

>>To the connection of religios discipline, remember that Israel was pretty much a theocracy, so most religious discipline was also considered criminal discipline.<< 

While that is not altogether true in Israel because of Roman rule, in synogogues in diaspora the line of was starkly drawn. It was literally discipline within a closed private society. 

>>A valid point that must always be remembered is that we are to love our wives as Christ loved the church. So I guess a good question is, does Christ's love for us include discipline? (btw, if you believe it does, show the scripture ;0).<< 

Yes, Hebrews 12 

Punishment never precludes love. I think we all really understand this. The key issue is the attitude of those involved. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/22/2002 10:58 am  
To:  Rtartan   (131 of 271)  
 
  295.131 in reply to 295.130  
 
Grace and peace to you. 
--- 
>>A valid point that must always be remembered is that we are to love our wives as Christ loved the church. So I guess a good question is, does Christ's love for us include discipline? (btw, if you believe it does, show the scripture ;0).<< 

>Yes, Hebrews 12 
--- 

Hebrews 12:5-11 is what I assume you are referring to, it states... 

5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives." 7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected [us,] and we paid [them] respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened [us] as seemed [best] to them, but He for [our] profit, that [we] may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (NKJV) 

This passage is referring to a father's (our Father's) discipline of his (His) children. The analogy of my dad punishing me for a wrong I committed (knowing it was wrong). But that is a father's relationship to his child. I don't see how that applies to Christ's relationship (as our husband) to the church (His wife), and therefore how it relates to how we are to treat our wife. I don't find in scripture that I am to treat my wife as I do my children. I do see how the passage relates to the Father's relationship with us (as adoptive sons). 

Does that mean that I exclude play? No. Nor do I, with the customary knee-jerk, condemn those who live this lifestyle. I leave it up to the principle taught in Romans 14:23 and trust the Holy Spirit to deal rightly with His people. Pending, of course, any scripture to the contrary. 

Is it possible for rational people to disagree with your views? That is a question we must always ask ourselves. Also, can a Holy Spirit taught believer disagree with me? My opinion is yes, because we are all at different places in our walks in Him and He reveals things to us as we are able to handle them (just as a loving Father would). 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/22/2002 11:23 am  
To:  Rtartan   (132 of 271)  
 
  295.132 in reply to 295.131  
 
You know whats interesting to me here? When i attempted this conversation, i was abused, called names, accused of being satanic and a mormon .....Yet you have managed to actually get some reasonable discussion. I really appreciate your input. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wwgeochem   1/22/2002 12:55 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (133 of 271)  
 
  295.133 in reply to 295.132  
 
But you were the one with the courage to open up this thread. My hat is off to you. 
Bill
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/22/2002 1:03 pm  
To:  wwgeochem   (134 of 271)  
 
  295.134 in reply to 295.133  
 
Why thank you kind Sir *smiles* i hope you will post your thoughts. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/22/2002 1:20 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (135 of 271)  
 
  295.135 in reply to 295.134  
 
Karen,

 

Too bad you are so eager to receive the praises of people instead of the praise of God.

 

It doesnt matter how many "cheerleaders" you can gather for your cause it is still an unbiblical activity.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/22/2002 1:23 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (136 of 271)  
 
  295.136 in reply to 295.132  
 
Karen, 
Grace and peace to you. 

I could be that part of the problem is using such an open ended question as you started the thread with. I know that I am leary to post on any topic until I understand where people are coming from. Then I begin to ask questions to determine their assumptions and their basis. 

Maybe if you had stated your opinion and its basis to begin with the tone of the conversation would have been different. Then again, people whose minds are made up based on their perception of what words mean won't be interested in discussion based on what you mean by the words. 

I don't support attacking just because someone asks a question, even if the question seems to be unscriptural to me. Words just seem to mean different things to different people. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wwgeochem   1/22/2002 1:47 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (137 of 271)  
 
  295.137 in reply to 295.135  
 
The basic principle of Christian liberty means we must consider all activities lawful until proven unlawful. 
Physical chastisement is not unlawful in itself. Proverbs contains many verses where fathers are admonished to use physical chastisement. 

Therefore, if the wife agrees to receive physical chastisement for misbehavior, we cannot conclude it is unlawful. 

Bill
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/22/2002 2:05 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (138 of 271)  
 
  295.138 in reply to 295.135  
 
You have no idea how or what my relationship is with God...back off, David, that is not your right nor your responsibility. I dont even know these people...they simply agree with me. Actually, i re-read many of the first posts in the thread...you were one of my biggest supporters..till the wind blew in a different direction. 
I appreciate their sane, polite and thoughtful responses...and look, David, no one called me a Mormon...for which you have YET to apologize...What does God say about slandering people? 

Karen 

p.s. i note you are still only attacking me...why do you not answer the Godly men who are also discussing this? 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/22/02 5:16:05 PM ET by KAREN10051 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/22/2002 2:06 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (139 of 271)  
 
  295.139 in reply to 295.136  
 
Thanks for the advice. You are wise and correct...i simply dont have alot of experience with posting. I will remember... 
Karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/22/2002 2:30 pm  
To:  wwgeochem   (140 of 271)  
 
  295.140 in reply to 295.137  
 
Judging from the actions, comments, and tones of the people who are in favor of the adult spanking sessions, Id have to defiantly say that it is of no Godly benefit.

 

It is rare to see such a group of undisciplined, rude, obnoxious, boisterous, proud, arrogant, unloving, uncaring people. Since this is what your so called spanking discipline and games are accomplishing it is a disgrace!!

 

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  123four   1/22/2002 4:26 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (141 of 271)  
 
  295.141 in reply to 295.140  
 
There is nothing scriptural and nothing 
Godly about these ridiculous ideas of 
physical abuse of the wife. Everyone in 
their hearts know that full well and 
are stretching to try to find some 
scripture to twist to give them an 
excuse to sin. Christians all know where 
this junk comes from. I don't think it 
should be allowed on a Christian forum. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 4:31 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (142 of 271)  
 
  295.142 in reply to 295.131  
 
--- 
>><<A valid point that must always be remembered is that we are to love our wives as Christ loved the church. So I guess a good question is, does Christ's love for us include discipline? (btw, if you believe it does, show the scripture ;0).>><< 
><Yes, Hebrews 12>< 
--- 

<<Hebrews 12:5-11 is what I assume you are referring to, it states... 

5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives." 7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected [us,] and we paid [them] respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened [us] as seemed [best] to them, but He for [our] profit, that [we] may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (NKJV) 

This passage is referring to a father's (our Father's) discipline of his (His) children. The analogy of my dad punishing me for a wrong I committed (knowing it was wrong). But that is a father's relationship to his child. I don't see how that applies to Christ's relationship (as our husband) to the church (His wife), and therefore how it relates to how we are to treat our wife. I don't find in scripture that I am to treat my wife as I do my children. I do see how the passage relates to the Father's relationship with us (as adoptive sons).>> 

One of the first problems here is that the analogies used have limitations, and here is one of them. We are a Bride yet we are his Children, and as Trinitarians we cannot totally compartmentalize. 

When we are chastened as a Father chastens his children, are we not chastened by the one who said I and my Father are one? 

My main point was not to say the corporal punishment is MANDATORY, rather simply to tip over the idea that it is unthinkable. 

>>Does that mean that I exclude play? No. Nor do I, with the customary knee-jerk, condemn those who live this lifestyle. I leave it up to the principle taught in Romans 14:23 and trust the Holy Spirit to deal rightly with His people. Pending, of course, any scripture to the contrary.<< 

>>Is it possible for rational people to disagree with your views? That is a question we must always ask ourselves. << 

To me that question comes in two flavors. OT1H, A couple may say, and be truthful in saying "Hey, we really ARE serious about the man being the head of the House, and DD just isn't an issue for us." that can be okay. 

OTOH, as of yet no one has been able to come up with a semi-biblical rebutal of my proposition, yet disagree forcefully. To me that is irrational. 

>>Also, can a Holy Spirit taught believer disagree with me? My opinion is yes, because we are all at different places in our walks in Him and He reveals things to us as we are able to handle them (just as a loving Father would).<< 

Paul and Barnabas disagreed strongly, yet in a very real sense, the were BOTH correct, but were aiming at two different purposes that from their limited view, looked contradictory. 

<<The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott>> 

And also with you.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 4:41 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (143 of 271)  
 
  295.143 in reply to 295.132  
 
Well thank you for opening the subject. 
I'd made a decision in the begining NOT to post my views unless the subject had been partially opened. The First place I posted anything on the subject was in response to "gay Christians" who absolutely refused to apply scripture to their lives. Hence, I posted my experience. 

While I expected some flack, I am AMAZED at how cavalierly some so called conservative Christians treat the scriptures.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 4:42 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (144 of 271)  
 
  295.144 in reply to 295.135  
 
If you have a Biblical case to make, make it. 
If you do not, then you have no basis for your snide remarks.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/22/2002 4:44 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (145 of 271)  
 
  295.145 in reply to 295.142  
 
>To me that question comes in two flavors. OT1H, A couple may say, and be truthful in saying "Hey, we really ARE serious about the man being the head of the House, and DD just isn't an issue for us." that can be okay. 
OTOH, as of yet no one has been able to come up with a semi-biblical rebutal of my proposition, yet disagree forcefully. To me that is irrational. 

... 

OT3H... one can be both serious about man being the head of the house and completely uncomfortable with the DD position. As most here seem (myself included). In that case they would not be doing it by faith if they did, so for them, it would be sin, as anything not done in faith is sin (Romans 14:23). 

I understand what you are saying about compartmentalizing God. At the same time though, at the same time we need to be careful to draw distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, yet He is One with the Son. The Father did not die on the cross for us, the Son did. The Son is not the Father, yet He is One with the Father. 

Does the Bible indicate we have a different relationship with the Father, with the Son, and with the Spirit? If so, then the husband/wife analogy of Jesus is what we need go after. 

I'm going to ask you a leading question. I inform you because it is the only fair thing to do. 

How would you describe Jesus' love for the church? My follow up question is how does DD exemplify that same type of love? 

For reference... 
Ephesians 6:25-33 
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord [does] the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife [see] that she respects [her] husband. (NKJV) 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 4:46 pm  
To:  wwgeochem   (146 of 271)  
 
  295.146 in reply to 295.137  
 
Well put. 
I've been having similar arguments with fellow christians who really do not seem to either know scripture well, or are not willing to let it be the final word on a matter.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 4:59 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (147 of 271)  
 
  295.147 in reply to 295.140  
 
>>It is rare to see such a group of undisciplined, rude, obnoxious, boisterous, proud, arrogant, unloving, uncaring people. Since this is what your so called spanking discipline and games are accomplishing it is a disgrace!!<< 
In Psychological terms, this is called "Projection." 

No one on my side of the debate has called names, nor hurled false accusations (as we have seen repeatedly), we have answered with reason and scripture. Certainly we cannot be called undisciplined or rude if we consistantly maintain rational responses in light of the "undisciplined, rude, obnoxious, boisterous, proud, arrogant, unloving, uncaring" treatment we have received. 

As for proud and arrogant, couldn't that charge be laid at the door of one who anounces that certain others, who they do not know, are "unloving" and "uncaring" people?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 5:03 pm  
To:  123four   (148 of 271)  
 
  295.148 in reply to 295.141  
 
>>Christians all know where this junk comes from. I don't think it should be allowed on a Christian forum.<< 
Ah, yes. 

If you cannot defeat an Idea with rational thinking and scripture, simply censor and supress it. 

("Over here to the left ladies and gentlemen is a relic of the Spanish Inquisition.") 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/22/2002 5:24 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (149 of 271)  
 
  295.149 in reply to 295.145  
 
Hi Scott,

 

I think that you have posted perhaps the most relevant Bible verses on the matter. Im also going to post the same verses and a couple verses prior to the verses that you posted

 

Ephesians 5:21-33 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is  the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any  such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth  himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord  the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his  wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife  see that she reverence her husband.

 

Thanks,

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/22/2002 8:39:47 PM ET by David 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/22/2002 8:42:30 PM ET by David  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/22/2002 5:38 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (150 of 271)  
 
  295.150 in reply to 295.1  
 
Hi Karen,

 

Just to clarify, I was never in favor of the topic of a husband spanking a wife. What I was in favor of was your using Bible verses to present you position.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 6:44 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (151 of 271)  
 
  295.151 in reply to 295.145  
 
>>OT3H... one can be both serious about man being the head of the house and completely uncomfortable with the DD position. As most here seem (myself included). In that case they would not be doing it by faith if they did, so for them, it would be sin, as anything not done in faith is sin (Romans 14:23).<< 
It really sound like you are describing the first position, unless you are building a case that from scripture that precludes this activity? 

Bishops are to love and care for the flock, yet this also includes at times, chastening, at least verbally of those in the congregation. 

>>I understand what you are saying about compartmentalizing God. At the same time though, at the same time we need to be careful to draw distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, yet He is One with the Son. The Father did not die on the cross for us, the Son did. The Son is not the Father, yet He is One with the Father.<< 

Trinitarian problems can give you a migrain. We had to wait until relativity and quantum mechanics came along to have a secular parallel for our problems with understanding the workings of the Trinity. 

For example when talking about the resurection we see in scripture (I don't have time to look them up, and you sound smart enough so that you probably know them already) that the Father raised him up, and that he was raised by the power of the Holy Spirit and that Jesus raised himself. So, which is it? (Gotta headache yet?) 

Compartmentalization is kinda tricky, and ultimatly does not really apply here anyway. 

>>Does the Bible indicate we have a different relationship with the Father, with the Son, and with the Spirit? If so, then the husband/wife analogy of Jesus is what we need go after.<< 

Even if I grant your point, the husband's authority over the home is assumed, and whether he does or does NOT, use CP was more a matter of preference/wisdom in application. 

Again, scripture mentions nowhere MOTHERS disciplining children, does that mean it is wrong? And the only punishment of a daughter we see mentioned in scripture is one mentioned in passing, and one not favored my most people today (a father spitting in his daughter's face), so are daughters exempted from the rod? 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, discipline is assumed, and the methods are rarely mentioned. 

>>I'm going to ask you a leading question. I inform you because it is the only fair thing to do. 

How would you describe Jesus' love for the church? My follow up question is how does DD exemplify that same type of love?<< 

Your reference is good, and I am sort of wondering how it might preclude DD? Certainly it is much more than that but is it less? 

<<For reference... 
Ephesians 6:25-33 
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord [does] the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife [see] that she respects [her] husband. (NKJV)>> 

I guess I am wondering how any of this still precludes DD? 

He wants a bride spotless and pure, and he washes us with his word... 

Obviously you are raring to go somewhere with this so, go to it.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 6:50 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (152 of 271)  
 
  295.152 in reply to 295.149  
 
<<For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:>> 
Since you highlighted that verse, I am wondering if you are assuming that either bdsm or DD is a manifestation of hatred? If so, how would chastening your wife be hateful and chastening your children not be hateful?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/22/2002 7:14 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (153 of 271)  
 
  295.153 in reply to 295.152  
 
Well, I guess in part that according to that verse that since you dont spank or hit yourself you have no business spanking or hitting your wife. It seems to me that it is saying that we nourish and cherish ourselves and that is the way we are to treat wives.

 

Just curious, but how does this whole, DD, thing fit into Christian dating. Is it practiced during dating? Are boyfriend and girlfriend supposed to discipline each other by hitting or is it as the Bible tells us to wash one another with the water of the word of God. Or is it that once married then it all starts.

 

The whole concept is just really bad and un-Biblical and I cant believe that possibly mature people are even attempting to support and promote it.

 

All the Best,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/22/2002 7:23 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (154 of 271)  
 
  295.154 in reply to 295.150  
 
****Post 295.21: 
Thanks, 
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
Im glad you started this topic it is turning into a good thread. 

Several people in the chat room have also commented on your topic as a good topic. 

God Bless You, 
David***** 

I can only go by what you said....the submission thread was long dead at this point. 

Are you EVER going to comment on your untruths about me? 

Karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 7:30 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (155 of 271)  
 
  295.155 in reply to 295.153  
 
>>Well, I guess in part that according to that verse that since you dont spank or hit yourself you have no business spanking or hitting your wife. It seems to me that it is saying that we nourish and cherish ourselves and that is the way we are to treat wives.<< 
First if we love our own flesh, we do not always do what is pleasant. Christian parents punish their children. I don't spank myself but I do work out and that can be JUST as painful! I deny foods to myself that will make me unhealthy... 

To some people's minds, I am not nourishing and cherishing myself properly. I should be staying on the couch eating chocolats and drinking coffee with heavy cream. After all, I'm supposed to love my own flesh, right?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/22/2002 7:35 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (156 of 271)  
 
  295.156 in reply to 295.154  
 
Um, that might mean that he had to deal with some of his undisciplined, rude, obnoxious, unloving, uncaring, (ad naseusm) issues.... 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/22/2002 8:01 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (157 of 271)  
 
  295.157 in reply to 295.154  
 
Hi Karen,

 

I dont know what more I can tell you, I already explained long ago that I made a mistake and confused the two of your topics. 

 

Also my first response to this thread was to delete a message that was posted on it.

 

Maybe you are trying so hard to twist what everyone says including the Bible to fit your ideas that you should just take people and the Bible at what is said as being what is meant.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/22/2002 9:15 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (158 of 271)  
 
  295.158 in reply to 295.151  
 
>Obviously you are raring to go somewhere with this so, go to it. 
LOL... actually I was looking for explanations. 

Your belief, if I may, is that DD involves love. Those who believe it is totally wrong say it doesn't. So I open it you to show how Christ treats His bride, and how it relates to DD. 

The way to determine whether a doctring/belief that falls into areas that aren't covered directly in scripture is by the principles taught in scripture. When it comes to details of marriage, what greater principle can there be then how Christ treats His Bride. So that leads to the question I asked you, as one who is more knoweldgable about DD then I. So I repeat it for clarity. 

We know from Ephesians 5 that we are to love our wives as Christ loves the church. So I ask how you would describe Christ's love for the church and by inference, how we are to love our wives. Then I would like to understand how DD exemplifies that love. 

I do my best to have no hidden agenda, I don't believe I have one here. I neither condemn nor endorse DD, and believe it is covered by Romans 14:23 until I see differently (one way or the other). So I am asking if there is a step beyond the surface of its not directly condemned and discipline (of at least children) is endorsed in scripture. How does the principle of Christ's love for the church apply? 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/23/2002 4:08 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (159 of 271)  
 
  295.159 in reply to 295.157  
 
David... 
You lied about me being a Mormon and supporting Mormons. As a Christian, address your lie. Is that clear enough? 

karen 


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 8:25 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (160 of 271)  
 
  295.160 in reply to 295.158  
 
> >Obviously you are raring to go somewhere with this so, go to it. 
<<LOL... actually I was looking for explanations.>> 

Oh, When you said that you had a loaded question, that ussually means that you have a definite opintion and that the question is a lead in to expressing that. 

Since you were using the term in an expression of good faith, I thought I would prompt you to have a go at it. 

<<Your belief, if I may, is that DD involves love. Those who believe it is totally wrong say it doesn't. So I open it you to show how Christ treats His bride, and how it relates to DD.>> 

This is where Hebrews 12, and all applications of discipline in any form should come in. Discipline should always involve love, be it for a chastised child, a teen-ager you take the car keys away from, or an elder/deacon, etc. in a local congregation you ask to step down from certian responsibilites. We need to examine this issue in the broadest possible terms. 

Exercising authority may not FEEL like love to those who receive it, even if the person administering discipline is completely soaked in wisdom and love, and that reaction is the strongest in those who need the authority most. Even those who understand do not enjoy it. 

The Church is his bride, we are God's children, yet we are chastened. Children are our very own flesh and blood, yet we are taught to chasten them. Memebers of our fellowship are Brothers and Sisters, yet we are taught to admonish them when they err. The list could go on, but the idea that love and admonishment, rebuke and chastening are somehow inimical to love is, on it's face, contrary to scripture. 

<<The way to determine whether a doctring/belief that falls into areas that aren't covered directly in scripture is by the principles taught in scripture. When it comes to details of marriage, what greater principle can there be then how Christ treats His Bride. So that leads to the question I asked you, as one who is more knoweldgable about DD then I. So I repeat it for clarity.>> 

If my wife is a woman of strength and character generally, yet she has a health problem and she is irrationally afraid of going to the Doctors, what is the proper expression of love? 

Their is of course a long list of answers, but there is no reason to preclude things like saying, "I want to 'ground' you from certain activities, or places, etc. until you make and KEEP the appointment with the Doctor's office." Furthermore, if it is a problem area and other tactics don't work, why is CP necessarily a taboo option? Some couples I know have specifically invoked this for worrisome areas of their life. 

I see this as a rather unussual applicaton of the "Blackmail Diet." A number of years ago a man was told by his Doctor that he had to loose XX lbs. or he would have serious health problems. Even this could not motivate him to quit his self-destructive eating habits. He concluded that most diets work, it was just that no one was diligent enough to stay with it. So, to motivate himself, he went to his Lawyer's office and had $10,000.00 put into an escrow account to be paid to the American Nazi Party if he failed to meet his weight goal by a specificed date. Being Jewish, it provided him with all the focus he needed to get it done. 

The Concrete goal worked. 

The methodology is different, but is either wrong? 

<<We know from Ephesians 5 that we are to love our wives as Christ loves the church. So I ask how you would describe Christ's love for the church and by inference, how we are to love our wives. Then I would like to understand how DD exemplifies that love.>> 

Again, there is an implicit assumption that their is a contradition here. Why do you think so? 

<<I do my best to have no hidden agenda, I don't believe I have one here. I neither condemn nor endorse DD, and believe it is covered by Romans 14:23 until I see differently (one way or the other). So I am asking if there is a step beyond the surface of its not directly condemned and discipline (of at least children) is endorsed in scripture.>> 

...And for adults in a quasi-judicial/congregational setting. 

One other bit of context might help to illuminate this subject. Until very recently (historically speaking, a century and a half or so, depending on the country), in Law the Father of a household was the very first level of goverment, and if someone murdered their Father, they were not considered guilty of murder, but rather treason. If you have ever wondered why the term "high treason" was used, it was to differentiate it from forms of "low treason." 

When was the last time that anyone on this board or in our society thought of underminging the authority of their father as a low level treason? 

As I have stated before in other posts, lots of evangelicals pay lipservice to Male headship, and even these are falling by the way, but virtually no one really takes it seriously. 

A prime evidence of this is something ELSE I mentioned in passing; Headcoving. Fifty years ago it would have been difficult to go to a conservative church and not see every woman wearing a hat, per Paul's instruction to the Corinthians, as a sign that they were under authority. 

Does anyone in this group go to a church where they take headcovering seriously? I don't. We have a couple of holdouts, but that is it. Even among those, I'm not sure how explicit they would be in saying that it was "a sign of being under authority" of her husband. 

<<How does the principle of Christ's love for the church apply?>> 

Again, I am not sure how it doesn't apply. 

<<The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit>> 

And also with you. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 8:31 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (161 of 271)  
 
  295.161 in reply to 295.158  
 
One other Item that I meant to mention, but may not have. I am not certain that BDSM in general is not a repressed expression of a basic truth denied. (I am using repressed in the technical sense.) 
Dr. John Gray has made a MINT by articulating truths that would have been taken as simple common sense 100 years ago. There may be a parallel here.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 8:41 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (162 of 271)  
 
  295.162 in reply to 295.153  
 
>>The whole concept is just really bad and un-Biblical and I cant believe that possibly mature people are even attempting to support and promote it.<< 
If I am wrong refute me and rebuke me with scripture and reason. So far you have not. I'm stating ideas that only sound foreign to modern ears, yet might not have sounded foreign to first century Christians or Christians a few years ago. 

Fifty plus years ago, a brief perusal of popular culture showed Husbands spanking wives in a somewhat comical vein, yet it was not considered (necessarily) abuse. Before a virtually universal censorship kicked in, this was also an essential ingredient in many Women's romance novels. Perhaps they knew something we do not?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 8:53 am  
To:  123four   (163 of 271)  
 
  295.163 in reply to 295.141  
 
Just to get a sense of where you are coming from could you tell me what your churh thinks about Men being the head of their home? 
How exactly is this practiced? 

How do they approach gender roles in the congregation?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/23/2002 9:03 am  
To:  Rtartan   (164 of 271)  
 
  295.164 in reply to 295.160  
 
Grace and peace to you 
----------- 
<<We know from Ephesians 5 that we are to love our wives as Christ loves the church. So I ask how you would describe Christ's love for the church and by inference, how we are to love our wives. Then I would like to understand how DD exemplifies that love.>> 

Again, there is an implicit assumption that their is a contradition here. Why do you think so? 
----------- 

Here is my perspective. I am neutral to the idea. There are those who are adamate against it. I am opening the door to a question they probably have, but have not thought through. Instead of jumping on a "it's bad because..." bandwagon, I am attempting to have you post more of the "it can be a positive because" type statements. 

So far, my perpective is that corporal punishment is acceptable for training a child and for punishing an adult criminal. It was shown to be used also for religious punishment (in Judiasm of Jesus'/Paul's time), though it was not shown that it was acceptable to God. 

Lots of things mentioned in the Bible as facts were not acceptable to God as behavior, such as David's adultery/murder fiasco. 

Part of the Ephesians passage talks of the sacrificial love of the man for his wife. How does this apply to DD? 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 9:41 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (165 of 271)  
 
  295.165 in reply to 295.164  
 
<<Grace and peace to you>> 
and also to you. 
----------- 
<<<<We know from Ephesians 5 that we are to love our wives as Christ loves the church. So I ask how you would describe Christ's love for the church and by inference, how we are to love our wives. Then I would like to understand how DD exemplifies that love.>>>> 

<<Again, there is an implicit assumption that their is a contradition here. Why do you think so?>> 
----------- 

<<Here is my perspective. I am neutral to the idea. There are those who are adamate against it. I am opening the door to a question they probably have, but have not thought through. Instead of jumping on a "it's bad because..." bandwagon, I am attempting to have you post more of the "it can be a positive because" type statements.>> 

How do you feel about the illustrations I already gave. 

<<So far, my perpective is that corporal punishment is acceptable for training a child and for punishing an adult criminal.>> 

In this you are light-years ahead of some. 

<<It was shown to be used also for religious punishment (in Judiasm of Jesus'/Paul's time), though it was not shown that it was acceptable to God.>> 

In that the OT endorsed it, it is really incumbent on us to demonstrate why it is NOT acceptable to God. 

<<Lots of things mentioned in the Bible as facts were not acceptable to God as behavior, such as David's adultery/murder fiasco.>> 

And that was specifically condemned, where other things are not. We do not have evidence of it being overturned. 

As I specifically compared it to the very issue of CAPITAL punishment, it seems we have better evidence (albeit weak) again that than we do corporal punishment. 

<<Part of the Ephesians passage talks of the sacrificial love of the man for his wife. How does this apply to DD?>> 

I thought I gave a good explanation in the last post on this. Does a parent punishing a child demonstrate sacrificial love? If so, how? If not, is it really altogether a negation of punishment?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wwgeochem   1/23/2002 10:19 am  
To:  Rtartan   (166 of 271)  
 
  295.166 in reply to 295.165  
 
This for BenRdeemed too, 
It is important when one examines covenantal relationships in which there is real authority, to also remember that all earthly authority is limited. Earthly authorities are limited in their appropriate jurisdiction, and in appropriate sanctions. 

The Proverbs explicitly authorizes the use of the rod and reproof for discipline children. The apostle explicitly authorized and implicitly commands the washing of water with word for for the discipleship of wives. There is no such explicit authorization (or forbidding) of the rod for wives. 

What does this mean, If a husband tries to teach his wife from the scriptures (and he isn't being a fathead about it), and she objects to it, she is in rebellion. He can take her to the church for ecclesiastical discipline. However, if he wants to spank her, and she objects, she is not in rebellion. If he insists, she can take him to the church for ecclesiastical discipline. 

However, because it is not explictly forbidden, a husband and wife can a lawfully agree to such an arrangement where he spanks her for various misbehaviors. She would have generally consented to being spanked, even if she might not consent to one particular spanking. 

Of course, Just because something is lawful, does not mean it is helpful. I think RTARTAN and maybe Karen, would have to explain how it can bring benefit to a relationship. 

We do not practice this in my home, and I do not expect we ever will. 

Bill
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   1/23/2002 10:34 am  
To:  Rtartan   (167 of 271)  
 
  295.167 in reply to 295.123  
 
The people who flogged Paul were under the bondage of the Law. 
Your reasoning compares apples with oranges. BDSM and child's play. Saying children at play are learning--yes, indeed. BDSM is NOT child's play. 

You say, >>BDSM is fun, and when a spanking is given for DD -a punishment spanking-, the sexual aspect is not totally gone, but the "fun" takes the edge off of pure punishment. I do not think there is an inherent 
contradiction between the physical felicities a married couple feels and spiritual joy. << 

I'm sorry, your idea of fun is rather beside the norm. 

>>GOD invented sex, and he invented traditional roles. Why should it be surprising that we should find Joy in a D/s relationship? << 

God did invent sex, but he did not invent BDSM. I give the enemy credit for that. 

Again, there's a snake in this garden.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   1/23/2002 10:50 am  
To:  Rtartan   (168 of 271)  
 
  295.168 in reply to 295.162  
 
Fifty-plus years ago, blacks sat at the back of the bus. One hundred years ago, children worked in factories from dawn until dusk. One hundred fifty years ago, blacks and whites OWNED blacks. We've matured a little in our attitudes toward each other. 
We are told to honor our father and our mother. Do we spank them? We are to honor those in authority over us. Do we spank them? 

Peter said "You married men should live *considerately* with your wives, with intelligent recognition of the marriage relationship, *honoring* the woman as physically the weaker, but [realizing that you are] joint heirs [equal] of the grace of life in order that *your prayers may not be hindered and cut off* [Otherwise, you cannot pray effectively.]" 1 Peter 3:7, The Message, and Amplified Bible. 

My pastor said that word *honoring* means to treating her like a fine piece of *silk*, a fine vase from the Ming dynasty. He said you can be chairman of the deacons, the most generous giver in the church, but if you mistreat your wife, God says, "I'm not listening to you." 

You don't spank your wife if you want God to hear your prayers. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 11:01 am  
To:  wwgeochem   (169 of 271)  
 
  295.169 in reply to 295.166  
 
<<It is important when one examines covenantal relationships in which there is real authority, to also remember that all earthly authority is limited. Earthly authorities are limited in their appropriate jurisdiction, and in appropriate sanctions.>> 
Actually, this is left largely undefined. Forty stripes is the limit, but we do not see anything about using the rod on children until we are in proverbs. The only punishment mentioned specifically for daughters is a father spitting in her face, but that was mentioned only in passing and we have no further details. 

<<The Proverbs explicitly authorizes the use of the rod and reproof for discipline children. The apostle explicitly authorized and implicitly commands the washing of water with word for for the discipleship of wives. There is no such explicit authorization (or forbidding) of the rod for wives.>> 

No explicit authorization, but in both civil/criminal/religious affairs it was assumed. Why not in the home? 

I'm not saying it is mandatory, it is simply not as far fetched as some here make it sound. 

<<What does this mean, If a husband tries to teach his wife from the scriptures (and he isn't being a fathead about it), and she objects to it, she is in rebellion. He can take her to the church for ecclesiastical discipline.>> 

and is that the best option? 

<<However, if he wants to spank her, and she objects, she is not in rebellion. If he insists, she can take him to the church for ecclesiastical discipline.>> 

That is a good question too. I am not sure at all that if we polled the saints from Moses forward, that they would agree with you on either point. 

On a pragmatic level you are correct, but not necessarily from a principled level. 

<<However, because it is not explictly forbidden, a husband and wife can a lawfully agree to such an arrangement where he spanks her for various misbehaviors. She would have generally consented to being spanked, even if she might not consent to one particular spanking.>> 

We are certainly in agreement on this. 

<<Of course, Just because something is lawful, does not mean it is helpful.>> 

This is where wisdom is supposed to play a role. 

<<I think RTARTAN and maybe Karen, would have to explain how it can bring benefit to a relationship.>> 

I thought I gave some fairly good examples earlier.... 

<<We do not practice this in my home, and I do not expect we ever will.>> 

You are responsible to run your household as you see fit, as I am responsible for running mine. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 11:09 am  
To:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   (170 of 271)  
 
  295.170 in reply to 295.167  
 
>>The people who flogged Paul were under the bondage of the Law.<< 
That they did so unjustly is not at issue. Like I said earlier, do you consider that CAPITAL punishment is done away with as well? 

>>Your reasoning compares apples with oranges. BDSM and child's play. Saying children at play are learning--yes, indeed. BDSM is NOT child's play.<< 

Perhaps because you are not learning you assume others are not? 

>>You say, >>BDSM is fun, and when a spanking is given for DD -a punishment spanking-, the sexual aspect is not totally gone, but the "fun" takes the edge off of pure punishment. I do not think there is an inherent contradiction between the physical felicities a married couple feels and spiritual joy. << << 

>>I'm sorry, your idea of fun is rather beside the norm.<< 

Should it be? Scripturally? 

>>>>GOD invented sex, and he invented traditional roles. Why should it be surprising that we should find Joy in a D/s relationship? <<<< 

>>God did invent sex, but he did not invent BDSM. I give the enemy credit for that.<< 

And do you base that on any scripture? 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   1/23/2002 11:21 am  
To:  Rtartan   (171 of 271)  
 
  295.171 in reply to 295.170  
 

I said: >>Your reasoning compares apples with oranges. BDSM and child's play. Saying children at play are learning--yes, indeed. BDSM is NOT child's play.<< 
Then, you said: >Perhaps because you are not learning you assume others are not? < 

Did I give any indication I didn't learn from child's play? Is your reasoning that flawed? 

Or are you saying I'm not learning from *you*? Is your reasoning *that* flawed? 

I said, >>I'm sorry, your idea of fun is rather beside the norm.<< 

You said, >Should it be? Scripturally? < 

Weak answer to my scriptures. 

You said,>>>>GOD invented sex, and he invented traditional roles. Why should it be surprising that we should find Joy in a D/s relationship? <<<< 

THen I said, >>God did invent sex, but he did not invent BDSM. I give the enemy credit for that.<< 

Then you said, >And do you base that on any scripture? < 

Again, weak answer to my scriptures. If it's not from God, what or who is the alternative? 

Proverbs 26 talks about answering a fool according to his *folly*. I'm finished answering and lending your folly any more dignity of a serious reply. Sorry to be harsh, but you are promoting ideas that are anything but constructive, and do not glorify God. 

There's a snake in this garden.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 11:43 am  
To:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   (172 of 271)  
 
  295.172 in reply to 295.168  
 
>>Fifty-plus years ago, blacks sat at the back of the bus. One hundred years ago, children worked in factories from dawn until dusk. One hundred fifty years ago, blacks and whites OWNED blacks. We've matured a little in our attitudes toward each other.<< 
One of the most common errors in thinking about history is assuming that the trends run positively or negatively. Everything you say is true, but it should not be assumed that our world is in all ways, or even in most ways, a better place than it was 50 years ago. We have rampant abortions, teen crime and suicide. We have GENUINE child abuse in increasing numbers that no one can attribute to better reporting alone. We have an absolute meltdown occuring in the family. 

All of these things and more besides show that we are not maturing in our attitudes. If anything we are decaying. 

I can already see the words of the biggest myth going forming on someones lips. "Oh, that is just nostalgia speaking..." The problem is that any ways in which we improve we label as genuine progress and REAL. Any ways in which we decay are labeled as nostalgia, which is either unreal in the first place, or unattainable. 

>>We are told to honor our father and our mother. Do we spank them? 
We are to honor those in authority over us. Do we spank them?<< 

First... HUH?!? 

Striking parents is forbidden in scripture. 

>>Peter said "You married men should live *considerately* with your wives, with intelligent recognition of the marriage relationship, *honoring* the woman as physically the weaker, but [realizing that you are] joint heirs [equal] of the grace of life in order that *your prayers may not be hindered and cut off* [Otherwise, you cannot pray effectively.]" 1 Peter 3:7, The Message, and Amplified Bible.<< 

You make a logical jump here without a warrant. How does one necessarily preclude the other? 

>>My pastor said that word *honoring* means to treating her like a fine piece of *silk*, a fine vase from the Ming dynasty. He said you can be chairman of the deacons, the most generous giver in the church, but if you mistreat your wife, God says, "I'm not listening to you."<< 

Assumption of preclusion. Where is the relationship? I MAY dishonor my wife verbally, or by simply ignoring my responsibility to my family. Yet you assume that a wife may not be cherished, loved and honoured by a husband who spanks her? 

>>You don't spank your wife if you want God to hear your prayers.<< 

Then, leaving the issued of DD aside for the moment, what if my wife's sexuality is nurished by spanking, is that wrong too? Would it be wrong for a couple who are practicing a version of the "Blackmail diet" I mentioned in an earlier post? 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/23/2002 12:36 pm  
To:  wwgeochem   (173 of 271)  
 
  295.173 in reply to 295.166  
 
Hi..because you have asked me specifically, i will give you my impressions regarding what DD brings to a relationship. Please keep in mind that these are MY impressions, and i do not know Rtartan, so they may not be his. 
The women i have spoken with all report a sense of well-being, security, love and protection while living in such a relationship. Many have spoken of it "saving" their marriages, or enhancing them greatly. 

It appears to clear the air, prevent petty arguements from occuring and generally keep the relationship on an even keel. There appear to be fewer instances of "rehashing" old disputes. It gives the woman a sense of closure and a feeling of atonement. 

These are my impresssions. 

Karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 1:13 pm  
To:  Maggie (HUGSMAGGIE)   (174 of 271)  
 
  295.174 in reply to 295.171  
 
>>>>I said: >>Your reasoning compares apples with oranges. BDSM and child's play. Saying children at play are learning--yes, indeed. BDSM is NOT child's play.<< 
Then, you said: >Perhaps because you are not learning you assume others are not? < 
Did I give any indication I didn't learn from child's play? Is your reasoning that flawed?<<<< 

My introductory to this was that I know of several couples who started to play D/s games after years of marriage to spice up their love lives. What the found as a supplimental benifit was that they improved their marriage OUTSIDE the bedroom. Submission as an attitude in everything, not just sex, caused their relationship to flourish. 

I'll say it yet again, there are lots of Christians who pay lipservice to submission, or deny it altogether, yet through this brand of play they learn a reality that they have either denied or ignored. Many of the people I am talking about fall squarely into that catagory. A number are feminists who have repented. 

THEY learned inspite of the fact that you assume that they cannot. 

>>Or are you saying I'm not learning from *you*? Is your reasoning *that* flawed?<< 

Ah, no. That others have learned through the process described. 

>>>>I said, >>I'm sorry, your idea of fun is rather beside the norm.<< 

You said, >Should it be? Scripturally? < 

Weak answer to my scriptures.<<<< 

Huh? You quote something and assume that it speaks to my points. It doesn't, or at least you have failed to connect them sufficiently. 

>>>>You said,>>>>GOD invented sex, and he invented traditional roles. Why should it be surprising that we should find Joy in a D/s relationship? <<<< 

THen I said, >>God did invent sex, but he did not invent BDSM. I give the enemy credit for that.<< 

Then you said, >And do you base that on any scripture? < 

Again, weak answer to my scriptures. If it's not from God, what or who is the alternative?<<<< 

You cannot just quote a scripture and assume that it applies to what you THINK it applies to. You quote scriptures that say that I need to love honour and cherish my wife, and you assume that the DD husband does not and Cannot. That is not true. 

>>Proverbs 26 talks about answering a fool according to his *folly*. I'm finished answering and lending your folly any more dignity of a serious reply. Sorry to be harsh, but you are promoting ideas that are anything but constructive, and do not glorify God.<< 

You are making yet another assumption, that I am a fool. Yet you cannot demonstrate where my reasoning violates either logic or scripture. 

Tell me, what happens to those who say "Thou fool!" even if I am a fool? 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 1:19 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (175 of 271)  
 
  295.175 in reply to 295.173  
 
These are my observations as well. 
Perhaps I should poll them. 

Q. do you feel: 
Cherished? 
Loved? 
Honored? 
(etc.) 

My guess is that the answer would be overwhelmingly yes, to each and every queston. 

Who could say that they were wrong?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/23/2002 1:33 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (176 of 271)  
 
  295.176 in reply to 295.175  
 
Your Propaganda is getting a little too blatant!

 

This was supposed to be a discussion, Not a Commercial and Not a recruitment center.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 2:00 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (177 of 271)  
 
  295.177 in reply to 295.176  
 
Both of the previous posts speak DIRECTLY to the objections that are weakly being thrown our way. 
As for a commercial, I have not posted any URLs, or done anything else to advertise my groups, specifically because -- absent any sound biblical reasoning -- you would complain about it. 

I have been engaging in rational biblical discussion. What have you been doing? --Telling a blatant untruth about one person, railing false accusations via a "shotgun" approach at those you oppose, and indulging in irrational emotionalism.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/23/2002 2:07 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (178 of 271)  
 
  295.178 in reply to 295.177  
 
I honestly believe, and i mean this totally respectfully, that "David" is actually a number of different people and that "he" (they) dont really read the posts, because "his" (their) answers dont necessarily correspond with what you write. And you will notice that "he" has never responded to my requests to clarify his untruths about me. It is the only logical conclusion. Either that or he has mulitple personality disorder. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/23/2002 2:13 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (179 of 271)  
 
  295.179 in reply to 295.177  
 
Hi,

 

You just posted a post claiming to know the feelings of other people and then proclaimed that their feelings make your position correct. Nothing Biblical in that discussion. Thats like saying the 10 spies that refused to enter the Promise land of God, based on their feelings about the Giants were right over the two, Caleb and Joshua, who wanted to obey God and enter in, not based on their feelings but based on their Obedience and Belief in the Word and Promises of God.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 2:13 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (180 of 271)  
 
  295.180 in reply to 295.178  
 
I am suprised in general when people respond to me and ask for things that I have already posted. 
Sometimes people are hard to figure.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/23/2002 2:27 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (181 of 271)  
 
  295.181 in reply to 295.178  
 
Hi Karen,

 

I did refer to your teaching and position as Cultic in nature as it is a controlling and manipulating practice which is the desire of cults especially the Mormon cult.

 

It was and is my opinion that what you are teaching is basically Mormonism and Not Christianity as Christianity is Loving and Nurturing and not controlling and manipulating like the cults.

 

So, now am I not allowed to have my own opinions? Do I have to apologize for disagreeing with you?

 

I dont really understand just what point you are trying to make? And now because we are disagreeing in a discussion you are reduced to making personal attacks, it doesnt make sense, but if you have more issues you would like to address to me I will do my best to answer them.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 2:28 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (182 of 271)  
 
  295.182 in reply to 295.179  
 
>>You just posted a post claiming to know the feelings of other people and then proclaimed that their feelings make your position correct.<< 
What I said was that I SHOULD poll the groups that I am on with those questions. Since OBVIOUSLY we are not biblical because a wife HAS to feel that she is not being cherished, honored, etc. 

I am speaking to the illegitimacy of the objection, as was Karen. 

>>Nothing Biblical in that discussion. Thats like saying the 10 spies that refused to enter the Promise land of God, based on their feelings about the Giants were right over the two, Caleb and Joshua, who wanted to obey God and enter in, not based on their feelings but based on their Obedience and Belief in the Word and Promises of God.<< 

You have YET to marshall a cogent biblical argument against my position. Scott has come the closest, and I respect the integrity of his posts. You on the otherhand have two definite falsehoods to your credit, a third one possible. 

I might be wrong, but I speak the truth as I know it. You have not spoken the truth. 

Besides, Karen and I make two, and I have not counted but there may be close to ten against us....<VBG>
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/23/2002 2:38 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (183 of 271)  
 
  295.183 in reply to 295.182  
 
You missed the point. 

 

The ten were the ones who wrongly trusted in their feelings alone and neglected the Word and Promises of God, and the two were the ones who placed their feelings and fears into submission with God and stood on the word and promises of God. It was not just about numbers but about who is submitting to God and who is submitting to their own emotions.

 

Right now you are standing on your feelings and the feelings of others about this topic.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 3:54 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (184 of 271)  
 
  295.184 in reply to 295.183  
 
>>You missed the point.<< 
Actually, I don't think I was. There have been objections that what we do, necessarily is contrary to issues of 

>>The ten were the ones who wrongly trusted in their feelings alone and neglected the Word and Promises of God, and the two were the ones who placed their feelings and fears into submission with God and stood on the word and promises of God. It was not just about numbers but about who is submitting to God and who is submitting to their own emotions.<< 

I've asked for BIBLICAL objections, HISTORICAL objections, or RATIONAL objections, and I have gotten few. Those I have received are answered, to the best of my ability, rationally and Biblically. 

I started my whole study in the bible because I had been HIDING from scripture, and I finally got the guts to face what ever SCRIPTURE said about BDSM. Complete with a study of the Greek words, I faced what the text said. No one here has been able to find an error in my study. 

Didn't you read that post? 

>>Right now you are standing on your feelings and the feelings of others about this topic.<< 

--I-- am standing on feelings?!? I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/23/2002 4:06 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (185 of 271)  
 
  295.185 in reply to 295.184  
 
Since there is not one single Bible verse telling a husband to spank a wife you are not standing on Scripture but are standing on a very thin and weekly disguised attempt at manipulating the Bible to fit your own desires.

 

Also you have completely ignored my questions about this behavior and Christian dating. Do you consider this behavior as something to be done in Christian dating/courting, or is it to begin only after marriage?

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/23/2002 4:16 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (186 of 271)  
 
  295.186 in reply to 295.181  
 
David, 
You should know about personal attacks. Let me say this: you are entitled to your personal opinions and beliefs. You do NOT have the right to slander me. You should never apologize for disagreeing. However, when you LIE, yes you should. 

I absolutely fail to see how this ties to Mormonism, but if that is your opinion, so be it. Let me state absolutely: I am NOT a Mormon, I dont even know any Mormons, and no one involved with DD that I know is a Mormon. 

Karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/23/2002 4:20 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (187 of 271)  
 
  295.187 in reply to 295.185  
 
David, 
For what it is worth, i personally do not think this should start with dating. A woman is not under the headship of a man until she marries him. Therefore, i personally believe this is best left to marriage. Just my humble opinion. 

karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 6:47 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (188 of 271)  
 
  295.188 in reply to 295.1  
 

This is something I posted on the old Christianity-Protestantism 
forum at Aboutforums last spring. 
Artie. 

************************* 

I'm more or less a lurker, but this thread has 
prompted me to respond. I understand what a gay 
person faces in the temptation not to really examine 
the scriptures and apply them. 

While I am not gay, ever since I could remember I was 
deeply drawn to BDSM. I really didn't want to THINK 
about what the Bible said about me. There was one 
passage that always jumped out at me, and that was the 
chapter just quoted. (1 Cor. 6:9-11) The phrase "abusers of 
themselves with mankind" absolutely haunted me, but I 
didn't want to face what that might mean for me. As 
far as I know that was the only passage that even came 
close to talking about what my desires were. 

Finally, I decided that I had to look at what that 
scripture said. I drove up to a large Seminary near 
my apartment. As I drove up to the hilltop library, I 
remember the butterflies in my stomach. I stood for a 
while in the large hall way outside the entrance, 
bracing myself for the study I was going to undertake. 
A promise I made to God and to myself before I went 
into the Library was that whatever I found, I wouldn't 
lie to myself about it. If that passage told me that 
I was not going to ever be able to indulge my desires, 
so be it. 

Obedience isn't just obligitory when it's easy. 

When I went into the Library I pulled some of the 
Greek Language referrences I needed in order to really 
pick apart the verses. When I sat down at the table 
with all my tools, I looked out at the Beautiful New 
England Countryside, and wondered how my life would be 
changed when I lifted my head and looked out on those 
trees and quaint little buildings again. 

"Abusers of themselves with mankind." 

As I went through this study, I found to my relief, that the 
words there, didn't refer to BDSM, but it was rather 
an explicit referrence to homosexuality. 
Translitterated it is "Male-bed." 

Ironically, the phrase translated as "effeminate" is 
not about homosexuality at all, but seems rather to 
refer to soft heartedness, weakness of resolve, or 
squimishness when faced with a necessary put 
unpleasant task. 

Well, to my personal relief, it seems my sexual tastes 
may be odd, but they are not evil. For the record, 
once this passage was out of the way I felt emboldend 
to finish out my search of the entire bible without 
finding anything even close to a ban. As long as what 
I do is within marriage, it isn't forbidden. Since 
then, wonder of wonders, I found SEVERAL Christian 
BDSM groups online. A few forum are here at Delphi, 
and quite a number over on Yahoogroups. Some of them 
can be hard to find, because of how Yahoo in 
particular restrict their searches. 

Someday, I am hoping to wed a woman from one of those 
groups, and there have been many weddings via these 
groups already. Many of these groups are primarily 
couples oriented and the makeup is far more 
conservative than I would have guessed. But, if I'd 
have never faced my issues, I would never had been 
able to move on, what ever moving on would have been. 
Even if the study would have gone against me, I would 
have never felt the need to seek out help and healing. 

Artie
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 6:53 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (189 of 271)  
 
  295.189 in reply to 295.185  
 
You have been unwilling/unable to deal directly with the issues in my post. Everytime I post something, and say to myself "I wonder how he will answer this scripture or this line of reasoning" I end up disapointed because you just duck the argument rather than offer a rebuttal. 
When you start doing this, and explain your 2.5 false accusations, I will reconsider my opinion of you.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/23/2002 7:09 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (190 of 271)  
 
  295.190 in reply to 295.189  
 
Hi,

 

Im sorry to disappoint you but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

I have seen your post on several other Christian forums. It seems that you are very driven to post and vigorously discuss your topic on many forums. It is not really a topic for this forum and I hope that you will be content to discuss this issue on other forums.

 

Thank You,

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/23/2002 7:30 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (191 of 271)  
 
  295.191 in reply to 295.188  
 
But lets be clear...there is a difference between DD and BDSM. Many who practice DD do not practice BDSM. 
karen

  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/23/2002 8:04 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (192 of 271)  
 
  295.192 in reply to 295.191  
 
I understand that they are different, yet there are, or rather often are, issues of overlap. 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/24/2002 4:20 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (193 of 271)  
 
  295.193 in reply to 295.190  
 
>>Im sorry to disappoint you but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.<< 
That would not disapoint me if I felt that you had truly engaged your thoughts to each issue. 

>>I have seen your post on several other Christian forums. It seems that you are very driven to post and vigorously discuss your topic on many forums.<< 

LOL, well this are discussion forums.... 

I am not sure which groups you have seen, but to be fair, you should acknowledge that the entire reason I originally wrote on this subject in each of the groups, save this one, was in an area where people were refusing to face scripture squarely, i.e., "Gay Christians." 

This is the only group that had a discussion of Domestic Discipline happening, and I didn't open it. Of course there are more people talking about/exploring the issue, but as we have seen here, it is a "Third-Rail." 

Why do you consider either topic as innappropriate?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/24/2002 4:29 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (194 of 271)  
 
  295.194 in reply to 295.160  
 
Hello, 
As you were one person who really seemed to honestly engage the subject and do so in a calm and thoughful manner. I was looking forward to hearing your feedback to my last post to you. 

Any thoughts?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/24/2002 5:01 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (195 of 271)  
 
  295.195 in reply to 295.160  
 
Our best example in scripture of how a man is to treat his wife is how Christ treats His church. When I read the New Testament for how Jesus treats His bride, I honestly cannot draw a connection to DD. 
I see your point of Hebrews 12, but I do not see that it follows that if the Father can discipline His child, that the older brother can. 

That said, I also don't see a condemnation of the behavior between consenting married adults. I think the sacrificial love of the man for his wife would preclude the activity if the wife were not willing, likewise the submission of the wife to the husband would preclude her from trying to entice her husband into something he was not willing to do. 

Were I see no direct condemntion in scripture, I believe strongly Romans 14:23 applies. If you conscious does not condemn (or convict) you, why should I? 

Concrete actions for not meeting goals is always required to get us to overcome our childish tendencies. Punishment can be one of those concrete actions (whether self punishment or punishment of another). I guess a question I would have is who restrains you? What steps do you take to make sure that you do not cross a line from love to abuse? 

What is more important, signs of submission, or actual submission? In Jeremiah 7, Jeremiah talks about how Isreal does all the right things at the temple, but that they are so corrupt when away from it that it doesn't matter. 

The opposite is true as well, and I summarize the opposite by saying at God is after our hearts, rather then our actions. But I digress. 

The head covering is such a principle. One can wear the head covering just because it looks good and be less submissive then the lady sitting next to her who doesn't wear one. Which would be honoring God? 

I personally have not seen any scripture to preclude this activity if both parties in the marriage are in agreement over it. I have not seen any scripture that endorses the activity either. I personally would not partake in the DD activity, because I cannot do it in faith, my conscious will not let me, so for me it would be sin. 

Beyond this, I don't really have anything to add. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/24/2002 6:02 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (196 of 271)  
 
  295.196 in reply to 295.195  
 
Thank you once again for your calm and reasoned responses. 
To turn the conversation slightly I want to just comment on one thing you said. 

<<<What is more important, signs of submission, or actual submission? In Jeremiah 7, Jeremiah talks about how Isreal does all the right things at the temple, but that they are so corrupt when away from it that it doesn't matter.>>> 

This certainly CAN be true. Yet I do think that outward actions can quietly shape the inward man. 

<<<The opposite is true as well, and I summarize the opposite by saying at God is after our hearts, rather then our actions. But I digress.>>> 

<<<The head covering is such a principle. One can wear the head covering just because it looks good and be less submissive then the lady sitting next to her who doesn't wear one. Which would be honoring God?>>> 

Certainly headcovering as a fashion statement does not meet the spirit of the practice, yet who on earth wants to be a lightning rod by actually saying "My headcovering is a symbol of being under the authority of my husband..." 

I know those who have done exactly that in a conservative evangelical church, and they have tended to feel like a squirrel in a back yard full of Rottweilers. Doesn't this point to an overarching hostility towards God ordained roles? My observation is that it runs VERY deep, even in communities that seem conservative. 

Headcovering is symbolic, but it is an ordained symbol, and like Baptism and communion, the fact that they are symbols makes them no less important.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/25/2002 9:04 am  
To:  Rtartan   (197 of 271)  
 
  295.197 in reply to 295.196  
 
>Headcovering is symbolic, but it is an ordained symbol, and like Baptism and communion, the fact that they are symbols makes them no less important. 
There are differences between baptism/communion and the headcovering. The first two were directly ordained by Christ's own words, the third was not. So there is debate on the third whether it was a meaningful custom of the time or an actual command. 

One of the similarities between them, though, is that the action in the absense of faith is meaningless. Without faith, baptism is just a dunk in the river (pool, whatever) and communion is just eating a piece of cracker and a drink of juice. It is the faith behind the action that give it the real meaning for the individual. 

They are still definitely good teaching tools, which the headcovering could be as well. 

>Doesn't this point to an overarching hostility towards God ordained roles? My observation is that it runs VERY deep, even in communities that seem conservative. 

Yes, but I ask, where do we go from here? How do we open the eyes of the average Christian to his Godly role? That is truly more important then any argument for or against DD. 

My opinion, it starts with us males. Not our "lording it over" our wives, but our sacrificial love towards them that forgoes football on the weekend to go flower shopping for example. Our turning off of the TV in our favorite show to actually listen to what our wife is saying, and our biting our tongue when we desire to speak, for maybe she doesn't want our opinions on the subject, but just to be heard. But then, that is not what this thread is about, this thread is about the opinions people have towards one practice that may or may not have any relevance to the way one treats his wife. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/25/2002 10:32 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (198 of 271)  
 
  295.198 in reply to 295.197  
 

>><<Headcovering is symbolic, but it is an ordained symbol, and like Baptism and communion, the fact that they are symbols makes them no less important.>><< 
<<There are differences between baptism/communion and the headcovering. The first two were directly ordained by Christ's own words, the third was not. So there is debate on the third whether it was a meaningful custom of the time or an actual command.>> 

I don't think it was necessarily too significant that the Third was not mentioned by Christ, after all, most of the New Testament record deals with the time period after his ascention into Heaven. What is IMPORTANT is the WHY that the Author gives. 

If you read the whole passage, it is clear that headcovering is a creation order issue, and that we are to obey this "for the sake of the Angels." I don't know about you, but I think that sounds pretty important. I would say that Paul was really putting us on alert. 

<<One of the similarities between them, though, is that the action in the absense of faith is meaningless. Without faith, baptism is just a dunk in the river (pool, whatever) and communion is just eating a piece of cracker and a drink of juice. It is the faith behind the action that give it the real meaning for the individual.>> 

Yet it is not always a one way street. Some people start with little faith, and their faith my grow through obedience. 

<<They are still definitely good teaching tools, which the headcovering could be as well.>> 

Exactly. 

>><<Doesn't this point to an overarching hostility towards God ordained roles? My observation is that it runs VERY deep, even in communities that seem conservative.>><< 

<<Yes, but I ask, where do we go from here? How do we open the eyes of the average Christian to his Godly role? That is truly more important then any argument for or against DD.>> 

I don't really know how to do this, except to say so when I can. Comically, as I had mentioned before, I can think of 5 Christian Couples who started DD play or DD lite or "Symbolic DD" and THAT is what opened their eyes to it. 

As for other methods, I don't know that you will find too many people with enough moral courage to face the issue squarely, I knew too many Christian College Profs and Seminary Profs who would become contortionist in order to neutralize the meanings they wished to avoid. 

<<My opinion, it starts with us males. Not our "lording it over" our wives, but our sacrificial love towards them that forgoes football on the weekend to go flower shopping for example. Our turning off of the TV in our favorite show to actually listen to what our wife is saying, and our biting our tongue when we desire to speak, for maybe she doesn't want our opinions on the subject, but just to be heard. But then, that is not what this thread is about, this thread is about the opinions people have towards one practice that may or may not have any relevance to the way one treats his wife.>> 

Can I ask you how the man you describe above could be differentiated from any other person who is weak on the issue? I understand that a leader has to be desperately concerned for the morale and wellbeing of those he leads, but he still has to be the leader. 

Trust me, I am not hoping for the creation of some sort of Evangelical Taliban, and I know that a big motivation behind feminism was a reaction against unloving abuse of authority. 

One lesson lost was that abuse of authority does not make authority, and exercise of that authority, bad. 

A second lesson lost is that in order to be a leader you have to lead. People complain that some men are poor leaders when they have been consistantly let off the hook when it comes to the issue of leading their families, in church, etc. 

Is it any wonder? 

<<The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit>> 

And also with you. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/25/2002 11:11 am  
To:  Rtartan   (199 of 271)  
 
  295.199 in reply to 295.198  
 
<<My opinion, it starts with us males. Not our "lording it over" our wives, but our sacrificial love towards them that forgoes football on the weekend to go flower shopping for example. Our turning off of the TV in our favorite show to actually listen to what our wife is saying, and our biting our tongue when we desire to speak, for maybe she doesn't want our opinions on the subject, but just to be heard. But then, that is not what this thread is about, this thread is about the opinions people have towards one practice that may or may not have any relevance to the way one treats his wife.>> 
>Can I ask you how the man you describe above could be differentiated from any other person who is weak on the issue? 

The difference is in the motivation. The leader does it out of a willingness to sacrifice, the weak person does it out of being compelled. 

This gets to the issue of what a leader is actually like. We must be careful that we don't equate the leader with what the world thinks a leader should be like, but with what God thinks a leader should be like. So we can turn to the teaching of Jesus to learn what true leadership is. That is part of the point of our relationship to Christ being similar to a man and his wife. 

The ultimate leader is the servant, not the despot (even if the kindly despot). Jesus is our ultimate leader and what does he say of Himself? 

Did not Jesus say that He did not come to be served, but to serve? That is leadership! At least, that is Godly leadership. 

At this stage I would recommend a wonderful book called "The Jesus Style" by Gayle Erwin. He takes Jesus' description of the "greatest in the kingdom" and shows us how we are to be. Who is the "greatest in the kingdom"? The ultimate answer is Jesus. So Jesus is describing Himself and His leadership. 

From Gayle Erwin's web page http://www.servant.org/index.htm comes the following list... 

The Nature of Jesus 

Servant 
Not Lord It over Others 
Lead by Example 
Humble 
As A Child 
As the Younger 
As the Least 
Last 
Used No Force on Us 
Was Not Driven by Selfish Ambition 
Made Himself of No Reputation 
Was Fully Human 
Obedient 
Unto Death 

Those are charactoristics of true leadership. Not some position of authority "Lording it over others." When we view ourselves properly, then we are set to be true leaders. The problem when most men try to assert leadership is that they don't do it as servants. They do it selfishly. This is true in the church and outside of it. 

We have actually lost much more then just the authority of the husband in the marriage. We have also lost what leadership actually is. 

Phillipians 2:5-11 
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to [the point of] death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NKJV) 

Jesus is our model of leadership, yet He became the greatest servant ever. 

We don't disagree on the fact that we need more men to be true leaders. Do we agree on what a leader is? 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott
 
---
Edited to activate the link given by Scott.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/25/2002 5:37:04 PM ET by David  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Rtartan   1/25/2002 1:40 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (200 of 271)  
 
  295.200 in reply to 295.199  
 
I'll try to check out the link sometime. 
As for the rest of your post, I would like for you to consider. Watch the movie "Saving Private Ryan" again and keep a notepad on your knee so that you can jot notes down on one theme -- How leaders and subordinates interact. Then start applying those observations to the question of gender and you will see that lots of the standard objections fall by the wayside. 

PFC.s want to know that their Captain can command, not that he is not giving, nor that he looks out for the welfare, but he is competent to command and is not apologetic for doing so, neither is he someone who is afraid of strong subordinates. Capt. Miller WANTS Sgt. Hovath to be strong, what he wants is a strong sargent who is willing for follow, and not think himself a Captain. 

Suddenly you will see that this can transform many of the standard objections into facile cliches that should not be taken too seriously. 

I'll talk to you more later.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/25/2002 2:14 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (201 of 271)  
 
  295.201 in reply to 295.200  
 
Do we get our leadership styles from the world or from scripture? 
Yes, the world has its system, but is it the system that Jesus teaches? 

Jesus does speak directly about Christian leadership. 

Matthew 20:20-28 
20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him. 21 And He said to her, "What do you wish?" She said to Him, "Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom." 22 But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to Him, "We are able." 23 So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but [it is for those] for whom it is prepared by My Father." 24 And when the ten heard [it,] they were greatly displeased with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to [Himself] and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave -- 28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (NKJV) 

Specifically vs 25 and on are veryy clear as to what leadership is from Jesus' own words. Since my goal is to be more like Jesus, I want to demonstrate His leadership style in my life. Afterall the servant (me) is not better than my Master (Jesus). 

Jesus was a radical! 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/25/2002 2:55 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (202 of 271)  
 
  295.202 in reply to 295.201  
 
Hi Scott,

 

First I really wanted to thank you for providing the information on what it is to be a Servant Leader like Jesus.

 

It is a topic that I really want to have center stage here on this forum.

 

In the book of Acts it is the Disciples of Jesus that are then named Christians by the worldly people who are observing the lifestyle of the disciples.

 

Acts 11:26 And when he (Barnabas) had found him (Paul), he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians {by the outsiders} first in Antioch.

 

To be a Christian is to first be a disciple, a student and a follower of the leadership and examples of Jesus and then it is the outsiders that need to term us as a Christian a follower of Jesus.

 

Second, just a note that I edited your posting with the link in it, I was not able to click directly on the link you provided so I edited it to make it an active link.

 

Thanks Again,

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/26/2002 1:16 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (203 of 271)  
 
  295.203 in reply to 295.201  
 
*sigh* 
Yes, our final authority is scripture, but the way you say it suggests that we cannot learn from other sources as well. 

You and I both know that is nonsense. Don't argue the point. Thank you. 

Now, if we REALLY believe that Scripture is our guide, we see leaders who are both humble yet willing to lead, and sometimes lead with very stern words. 

If you disagree you, I can only conclude that you are reading a different NT than I am. With very little effort we can find words of unvarnished instruction and rebuke from virtually every NT author. 

They resemble Captain Miller, concerned with those they are responsible for, and unapologetic for leading. They respect those under them yet willing to correct them, sometimes gently, sometimes harshly. 

There is a difference between servant leader, and a servant who refuses to lead. Most people tend to be confused on that point. 

Our ecclesiastic cultures have agressivly forgotten too many lessons from scripture, and then we read Paul and the other Apostles and biblical characters through a filter so thick that we could not recognize them if we met them. That is, in part, what is happening here. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/26/02 7:40:57 PM ET by RTARTAN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/26/2002 3:30 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (204 of 271)  
 
  295.204 in reply to 295.191  
 
I went back and looked at the lengthy article you posted towards the beginning of this thread over several posts. This was a pretty good article, and it is interesting that no one really went through and refuted it. 
This article was on the web, but I cannot find the link anymore. The original format was much more readable than the plain text I got. 

Do you have a URL where anyone here can find it?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/26/2002 4:38 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (205 of 271)  
 
  295.205 in reply to 295.191  
 
There is one item that you might find of interest. I've not been able to do anything but a quick study and if I have had more time I could be more thorough. 
If you check out the use of the term "rod" and "chastening" and "smite" etc., you will find that in the book of Proverbs, you will see that use of the rod of correction is mentioned 5 times in relation to the correction of children, but 6 times in relationship to adults. 

Outside the book of proverbs, I have found 7 referrences to punishment of adults and two referring to children. 

The numbers are somewhat soft because in different contexts the hebrew word for chastening may or may not be related to the rod of correction. 

There are those here who find this does not fit their preconceived notions, but the verses are there, and not in the context of saying that it is bad per se, though some limitations given. If the text is correct, why do not these people acknowledge it? 

It is interesting to note that these instructions are not "gender normed" or forbidden outright in any regard. Hence, while domestic discipline may not be appropriate for each and every marriage, there is no BIBLICAL basis for its dismissal by the opponents of DD.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/26/2002 6:10 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (206 of 271)  
 
  295.206 in reply to 295.203  
 
Grace and peace to you 
>Yes, our final authority is scripture, but the way you say it suggests that we cannot learn from other sources as well. 

Since you wish believe that I think that way, I will leave you in that assumption. Of course, it will soon end the conversation, for you will insist on me defending something I never said. 

When the world teaches a lesson (like homosexuality is ok) that is contrary to scripture, are we to take the world's position? I really don't think you believe that would be nonsense as well. 

>There is a difference between servant leader, and a servant who refuses to lead. Most people tend to be confused on that point. 

You are correct. There is also the a difference between a leader that will "lord it over you" and a servant leader. Yet both lead. Jesus was neither a servant who refused to lead nor a leader the "lorded it over us". He is the example, and by His example, we understand that it is ok for the leader to serve the servant (John 13). 

>Our ecclesiastic cultures have agressivly forgotten too many lessons from scripture, and then we read Paul and the other Apostles and biblical characters through a filter so thick that we could not recognize them if we met them. That is, in part, what is happening here. 

You are right, our ecclesiastic cultures tend to take our worlds values and encorporate them into their thoughts. Kind of like taking a movie as the correct example of what a leader is, instead of taking the example of Jesus in scripture. 

The question is, who is using the world's standard and who is using scriptures? You say you are, and I say I am. So we are left with disagreement. 

Of course, the option is you could tell me how you understand what Jesus' words mean in Matthew 20:25-28 with respect to your understanding of leadership. 

I will likewise answer any questions you may have. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/26/2002 6:47 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (207 of 271)  
 
  295.207 in reply to 295.206  
 
><<Yes, our final authority is scripture, but the way you say it suggests that we cannot learn from other sources as well.>> 
>>Since you wish believe that I think that way, I will leave you in that assumption. Of course, it will soon end the conversation, for you will insist on me defending something I never said.<< 

What other conclusion could I rightly draw from you previous comments and your comments from later on in this post for that matter. I'm not putting words in you mouth. 

>>When the world teaches a lesson (like homosexuality is ok) that is contrary to scripture, are we to take the world's position? I really don't think you believe that would be nonsense as well.<< 

And if I were talking about values that are clearly contrary to scripture, your comments would have an application, but as I had pointed out, I see striking similarities between the Leadership of St. Paul and Captain Miller. 

><<There is a difference between servant leader, and a servant who refuses to lead. Most people tend to be confused on that point.>> 

>>You are correct. There is also the a difference between a leader that will "lord it over you" and a servant leader. Yet both lead. Jesus was neither a servant who refused to lead nor a leader the "lorded it over us". He is the example, and by His example, we understand that it is ok for the leader to serve the servant (John 13).<< 

I guess that a big part of the conversation here is going to turn on how expansively or narrowly we define "lord it over you." Lets see what your working definition is and then see if we can examine it by the standard of scripture. 

><<Our ecclesiastic cultures have agressivly forgotten too many lessons from scripture, and then we read Paul and the other Apostles and biblical characters through a filter so thick that we could not recognize them if we met them. That is, in part, what is happening here.>> 

>>You are right, our ecclesiastic cultures tend to take our worlds values and encorporate them into their thoughts. Kind of like taking a movie as the correct example of what a leader is, instead of taking the example of Jesus in scripture.<< 

Do you still think I'm puting words in your mouth? This comment is quit uncalled for. Thank you. 

I simply see Capt. Miller as a good contemporary picture of what the NT leaders were like; concerned for those under them, yet unafraid to command. He valued and respected them, yet he was unapologetic about reading them the riot act when it was warranted. 

Would you say Capt. Miller is a "lord it over you" type of leader? 

What Image, if you will, from popular culture, or classic culture would you most liken to a New Testament leader? I have a very specific reason for asking this question in this way. 

The question is, who is using the world's standard and who is using scriptures? You say you are, and I say I am. So we are left with disagreement. 

Of course, the option is you could tell me how you understand what Jesus' words mean in Matthew 20:25-28 with respect to your understanding of leadership. 

I will likewise answer any questions you may have. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/26/2002 6:51 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (208 of 271)  
 
  295.208 in reply to 295.206  
 
If I posted a website that profiled a Christian Couple's DD experience, would anyone be interested in viewing it without sending them hatemail? 
There is no nudity, pornography, or graphic sexual content. 

Would anyone consent to view and then come back HERE to discuss? 

I would do it straight out, but I'm not sure I can trust people here to be mature enough not to swamp these nice folks with judgemental rantings.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/26/2002 7:07 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (209 of 271)  
 
  295.209 in reply to 295.208  
 
Not so fast there..

 

First of all I am constantly Offended that you attempt to portray the people of this forum as offensive to others.

 

And secondly you have not even considered to check with the forum host if this is an appropriate link.

 

I do not see it as an appropriate link. The Christian forums on Delphi attempt to maintain a code that a Christian forum is a forum where Christians and their children will feel comfortable visiting. By placing a link of this nature we are betraying this trust that the other Christians and Christian forums are placing in us here at Basic Christian.

 

The solution is that you have already made the offer and if anyone is interested in taking you up on it they can contact you via e-mail and you can discern if they are an adult and need to visit such a forum and you can provide the link privately via e-mail instead of indiscriminately posting to all.

 

Thank You,

David

 

 

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/26/2002 7:10 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (210 of 271)  
 
  295.210 in reply to 295.204  
 
No, i dont...someone sent it to me. sorry...i could ask for it though. You are quite correct...not one person read it. They asked me to post it but never even looked. 
karen 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/26/2002 7:12 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (211 of 271)  
 
  295.211 in reply to 295.209  
 
I believe it IS a Christian delphi forum, and rated as such by Delphi. 
karen
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/26/2002 7:28 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (212 of 271)  
 
  295.212 in reply to 295.209  
 
>>Not so fast there..<< 
>>First of all I am constantly Offended that you attempt to portray the people of this forum as offensive to others.<< 

In my time here, the only person who has offered reasonable and polite discussions so far have been Scott. You behavior is far from expemlary, and if you try to plead innocent, I amd sure that either Karen or I could repost some of your shananagans (not to mention those of others on this forum) for all to see. 

You frankly ought to be embarassed at some of what you have posted. 

>>And secondly you have not even considered to check with the forum host if this is an appropriate link.<< 

Well, I really should have posted this to all, and WHO pray tell is the host? 

>>I do not see it as an appropriate link. The Christian forums on Delphi attempt to maintain a code that a Christian forum is a forum where Christians and their children will feel comfortable visiting. By placing a link of this nature we are betraying this trust that the other Christians and Christian forums are placing in us here at Basic Christian.<< 

What beyond "No nudity, pornography, or graphic sexual content" would be sufficient to meet your criteria? 

>>The solution is that you have already made the offer and if anyone is interested in taking you up on it they can contact you via e-mail and you can discern if they are an adult and need to visit such a forum and you can provide the link privately via e-mail instead of indiscriminately posting to all.<< 

I can live with that. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/26/2002 7:31 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (213 of 271)  
 
  295.213 in reply to 295.211  
 
Actually the URL I was referring to is a couple's private URL, and it is tame enough to bore the most desperate lecher, but quite instructive to someone seriously considerng the issue of Domestic Discipline. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/26/2002 7:33 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (214 of 271)  
 
  295.214 in reply to 295.213  
 
Oh..well...sorry. You may as well forget it because this is an absolute case of "dont bother me with facts." Trust me. They never even read my posts. 
karen
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/26/2002 8:53 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (215 of 271)  
 
  295.215 in reply to 295.214  
 
Yes, yes, and the are SURE that it is "unBiblical" and "not norishing," etc., etc. 
I must confess, with the possible exception of Scott, open minded examination has been rare as hen's teeth.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/27/2002 8:13 am  
To:  Rtartan   (216 of 271)  
 
  295.216 in reply to 295.207  
 
Grace and peace to you 
>What other conclusion could I rightly draw from you previous comments and your comments from later on in this post for that matter. I'm not putting words in you mouth. 

How about drawing no conclusion and asking a question instead. If I were to read your original conclusion as a question it would state... 

"Yes, our final authority is scripture, but are you saying that we cannot learn from other sources as well?" 

My answer would then be... 
No, as an engineer I use many principles daily for my worklife not drawn from scripture. There is much to learn in this world that scripture does not cover. 

There is a big difference between asking a question and making an assertion. The former keeps communication going on an even keel, the latter puts one in a position of a defensive attitude. Once that defensive attitude sets in, further communication becomes blocked by pride, usually manifested in name calling, etc. That quickly spirals downward (usually with 1-2 posts) into a waste of internet memory and bandwidth. All sides are guilty of it, so this is not a rebuke of you, just a heads up, let us not let it go there. 

>And if I were talking about values that are clearly contrary to scripture, your comments would have an application, but as I had pointed out, I see striking similarities between the Leadership of St. Paul and Captain Miller. 

Ok, we are talking of leadership, and you are correct, leadership is scriptural. My point (by way of that example) was that we need to be careful how we view other sources with respect to scripture. I used a technique that Jesus often did, hyperbole. 

On the subject of Captain Miller and "Saving Private Ryan", personally I have not watched the movie. When it was in the theaters, my money supply and time did not allow for going to movies, and we don't typically rent movies either. So I can only take what you say about the movie. You see correlations between Paul and Captain Miller's style of leadership, I'll accept that perception. 

But it leads to an interesting question in my mind. Do we accept the example of leadership of Paul, or do we just accept his teaching. His leadership style alienated himself from Barnabas with regards to John-Mark, and yet later in life, Paul appears to have accepted John-Mark. Now it is possible that John-Mark grew, but it is also possible that Paul's leadership tendencies grew. In one of Paul's early epistles (Galations) he let's into Peter for hypocracy, he also let's into the Galations themselves. Yet in a later in life epistle (Colossians) he gives as doctrine... 

Colossians 4:6 
"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one." 

I would not say that Colossians 4:6 describes Paul's confrontation with Peter described in Galations 2. But then I don't find where Paul commends his style in Galations 2 anywhere in scripture, he simply states what he did as fact. 

>Do you still think I'm puting words in your mouth? This comment is quit uncalled for. Thank you. 

Yes I did, but I was wrong as well. I am sorry, I should not have done it that way. 

>What Image, if you will, from popular culture, or classic culture would you most liken to a New Testament leader? I have a very specific reason for asking this question in this way. 

I do not believe that the NT leaders got it right in practice, though they got it right in theology. They were men, like us, that stumbled through life as they grew in the Lord. The only NT leader who got it right all of the time is Jesus, and I see no contemporary example to how Jesus lived. All of the contemporary leaders have a visible streak of pride and most had a visible streak of self-centeredness. That does not mean they did not have their moments of going beyond that, but those moments did not last. 

That said, my heros of society are George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. But do they reflect the leadership style of Jesus? Sometimes, Lincoln more so then Washington, but both were imperfect. 

"Lord it over" - I define the term as one who exercises authority based solely on his position of having authority, typically for his/her own benefit. It would be one who is above serving others, because, afterall, they are the leader. 

So how does Matthew 20:25-28 apply to your understanding of leadership? 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/27/2002 8:37 am  
To:  ALL   (217 of 271)  
 
  295.217 in reply to 295.216  
 
For convience here is the verse 

 

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Rtartan   1/27/2002 12:00 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)    
 
    
 
<<Grace and peace to you>> 
And also to you. 

>><<What other conclusion could I rightly draw from you previous comments and your comments from later on in this post for that matter. I'm not putting words in you mouth.>><< 

<<How about drawing no conclusion and asking a question instead. If I were to read your original conclusion as a question it would state... 

"Yes, our final authority is scripture, but are you saying that we cannot learn from other sources as well?">> 

<<My answer would then be... 
No, as an engineer I use many principles daily for my worklife not drawn from scripture. There is much to learn in this world that scripture does not cover.>> 

<<There is a big difference between asking a question and making an assertion. The former keeps communication going on an even keel, the latter puts one in a position of a defensive attitude. Once that defensive attitude sets in, further communication becomes blocked by pride, usually manifested in name calling, etc. That quickly spirals downward (usually with 1-2 posts) into a waste of internet memory and bandwidth. All sides are guilty of it, so this is not a rebuke of you, just a heads up, let us not let it go there.>> 

With all due respect, your question sounded quite rhetorical. As I read it, it is hard to see it as not so. Hence, it certainly seems like more of an assertion than a question, if I misunderstood, I hope you will realize that it was a most reasoned misunderstanding. 

>><<And if I were talking about values that are clearly contrary to scripture, your comments would have an application, but as I had pointed out, I see striking similarities between the Leadership of St. Paul and Captain Miller.>><< 

<<Ok, we are talking of leadership, and you are correct, leadership is scriptural. My point (by way of that example) was that we need to be careful how we view other sources with respect to scripture. I used a technique that Jesus often did, hyperbole.>> 

That is a fair caution, and if we stray from what is really said in scripture, or read things into it that is not there, we have a problem. 

Yet that is the exact problem we have before I enter from stage left. 

Some years ago, Disney wanted to build a Civil War theme park somewhere in Northern VA, but the was eventually scrapped because of opposition. 

Shelby Foote, author of one of the most readable and comprehensive histories of the Civil War said, (I am quoting from memory) "What we will get if this park gets built will be exactly what Disney has given us in the world of nature, something sentimenatlized beyond recognition." 

Today people tend to read the New Testament with "Disney Vision" and the result is that even when they are staring strait at the text they connot comprehend what it is saying. And this is the reason that I want people to look for images out of Popular culture that might really match up with the facts, as the mental filters people have are just too strong to overcome without that tool. 

In large measure I see the people here as reading scripture with "Disney Vision" and that is why we get so much irrational resistance. 

<<On the subject of Captain Miller and "Saving Private Ryan", personally I have not watched the movie. When it was in the theaters, my money supply and time did not allow for going to movies, and we don't typically rent movies either. So I can only take what you say about the movie. You see correlations between Paul and Captain Miller's style of leadership, I'll accept that perception.>> 

Without regard to our current conversation, let me STRONGLY recommend this movie to you. I almost consider watching it a civic duty. 

Please know that in the quest for realism in presenting the unvarnished truth about what happened on D-Day, NO children under, say 14, should watch it (the sensitivies of kids vary) but I think that any adult of sound mind should watch this film. 

As to our conversation, making a study of Capt. Miller as a leader, and then rereading scripture, you will see some startlingly good applications. 

<<But it leads to an interesting question in my mind. Do we accept the example of leadership of Paul, or do we just accept his teaching. His leadership style alienated himself from Barnabas with regards to John-Mark, and yet later in life, Paul appears to have accepted John-Mark. Now it is possible that John-Mark grew, but it is also possible that Paul's leadership tendencies grew.>> 

I think what is more likely than either is that BOTH Paul and Barnabas were correct, but they could not see it. Had either caved in on that particular point Mark may have lost his way, either from being crushed by discouragement on another hard missionary journey, or from being abandoned by BOTH of his mentors. In a very real sense, Paul and Barnabas' argument gave us our first Gospel. (Chronologically Mark was written first.) 

John-Mark did need to grow, and Pauls rejection of him may have been the sharp rebuke he needed. Yet he needed a more gentle mentoring as well. I think he clearly needed both. 

<<In one of Paul's early epistles (Galations) he let's into Peter for hypocracy, he also let's into the Galations themselves. Yet in a later in life epistle (Colossians) he gives as doctrine...>> 

<<Colossians 4:6 "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.">> 

<<I would not say that Colossians 4:6 describes Paul's confrontation with Peter described in Galations 2. But then I don't find where Paul commends his style in Galations 2 anywhere in scripture, he simply states what he did as fact.>> 

You are missing the phrase "seasoned with salt" and when you see that you see no contradiction in his words of grace and his scathing rebukes that "salt" his writings. Paul had a salty tongue (in the sense of stinging, rather that profane) and never apologised for it in the texts. 

So it was for all the Apostles. It is not insignificant that we are instructed that ALL scripture is good for, among other things, rebuke and reproof. Those are not gentle words, but words that denote conflict. 

>><<Do you still think I'm puting words in your mouth? This comment is quit uncalled for. Thank you.>><< 

<<Yes I did, but I was wrong as well. I am sorry, I should not have done it that way.>> 

Well, one of the weaknesses of this mediums is that we cannot hear tone of voice or see facial expressions. 

>><<What Image, if you will, from popular culture, or classic culture would you most liken to a New Testament leader? I have a very specific reason for asking this question in this way.>><< 

<<I do not believe that the NT leaders got it right in practice, though they got it right in theology. They were men, like us, that stumbled through life as they grew in the Lord. The only NT leader who got it right all of the time is Jesus, and I see no contemporary example to how Jesus lived. All of the contemporary leaders have a visible streak of pride and most had a visible streak of self-centeredness. That does not mean they did not have their moments of going beyond that, but those moments did not last.>> 

I guess that I would take issue on the point of practive vs. theology. I cannot think of one time in scripture, where one of the heros sin, where it is not officially called sin, and we see specific repentance. Some of there practices and words were quite harsh, yet I have no evidence to say that they were wrong without reading things into the text that isn't there. 

<<That said, my heros of society are George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. But do they reflect the leadership style of Jesus? Sometimes, Lincoln more so then Washington, but both were imperfect.>> 

I would like to encourage you to do two things, go to your local library and get the video recordings of Ken Burn's Civil War series, if you have never watched it (9ish 1 hour episodes) and "Saving Private Ryan." After you have watched them, do a quick read over the NT and ask yourself what characters from these films reflect the personality and practices of 

<<"Lord it over" - I define the term as one who exercises authority based solely on his position of having authority, typically for his/her own benefit. It would be one who is above serving others, because, afterall, they are the leader.>> 

Except that it was not for his own benefit, Paul seems to be guilty of "Lording it over" as many anti-Paul voices will quickly point out with out my prompting. I feel your definition is too expansive. 

<<So how does Matthew 20:25-28 apply to your understanding of leadership?>> 

The typical leader spoken of here, had himself as the center of leadership. He would be unconcerned with those under his power, except as their wellbeing affected him. Hence, he might want them to prosper, but only if it made him prosper. 

True Matt 20 leadership is found in another contemporary example. There is a wonderful little book called "A Bell for Adano" by John Hersey. This book chronicles the Work of a U.S. Army Major Victor Joppolo who is responsible for the administration of a small war ravaged City in Italy. In it we see a man who makes it a priority to have the city work so that people do not stave, die of thirst, or disease. He consistantly is willing to put his authority and ego aside when that is the best thing to do, yet he is willing also to use his authority unreservedly when THAT is the correct thing to do. When some peole do bad things he is willing to throw them in jail or remove them from office. He is willing to bite the head off of subordinates and peers who are unconcerned with their responsibilities. 

We see him risk Court-mashall himself to do the right thing, and yet willingly hammer others who fail to do the right thing. 

The whole time he knows that it is not about him, his ego, his wellbeing. It is about the people of Adano. 

There is no contradiction that I can see between the leader of Matt 20 and Major Joppolo. 

I see alot of Jesus, Paul, and others in this Major. 

For Saint Paul it was not about him. It was about the churches. He spoke kind words and positively brutal words, as did Jesus. Did you ever count up the times Jesus REBUKED his disciples? There are times when in reading scripture that I don't wonder if someone might have nick-named him "mantis" for his propensity for biting peoples heads off. Yet in the last analysis for both Paul and Jesus, it was about not about THEM, and THEIR wellbeing. Rather than some childish ego trip, each knew that sometimes the most healthy thing to do for those for whom they were responsible, was feed them bitter medicine. 

<<The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit>> 

and also with you. 

 
From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/27/2002 12:12 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (219 of 271)  
 
  295.219 in reply to 295.215  
 
I agree with you that people should be open minded about this; but through this post, the question of scripture to back up these DD beliefs has not been presented. If it isn't Biblical, then, for a Christian, it deserves no consideration! If you were to post scripture, you would find David not so stand-offish; but there is none! And in case he hasn't got around to it yet, David is the moderator!
May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Rtartan   1/27/2002 12:49 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (220 of 271)  
 
  295.220 in reply to 295.219  
 
First, very early in the thread Karen posted, in several parts, a rather lenghty essay that used lots of scripture to support a principle of Domestic Discipline. Yet there has been no specific counter analysis to these posts. One could argue that some scripture is misapplied, yet no one has. 
Second, only a few posts ago I spoke about how the words referring to the rod and chastening were used in the OT and that we have more refs for the Rod being used on adults than we do for children. Scripturally, a man is clearly God's first agent of Governance in ruling his household. If Scripture admonishes us to punish wrongdoing in both children and adults with the rod, why is DD so unthinkable? 

Many families might never have need to resort to DD, yet that would be a "wisdom" call rather than evidence that DD is just wrong. 

Perhaps this is an important issue because we live in a world that is drunk on the worst of feminism. This drunkeness has swept through the church, even to some of the most conservative corners. I have come to believe that we at least need to restore symbols of authority in order to have a healthy body of believers. 

This is why I brought up the issue of headcovering. I don't know anyone besides the Old Order Mennonites who take this seriosly. Everywhere else rebellion is virtually universal.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/27/2002 6:34 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (221 of 271)  
 
  295.221 in reply to 295.219  
 
>I agree with you that people should be open minded about this; but through this post, the question of scripture to back up these DD beliefs has not been presented. If it isn't Biblical, then, for a Christian, it deserves no consideration! 
Does football or chess or eating kiwi or driving a car fit this definition? What makes them different from the topic of this thread? 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/27/2002 7:00 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (222 of 271)  
 
  295.222 in reply to 295.218  
 
Grace and peace to you... 
>With all due respect, your question sounded quite rhetorical. As I read it, it is hard to see it as not so. Hence, it certainly seems like more of an assertion than a question, if I misunderstood, I hope you will realize that it was a most reasoned misunderstanding. 

Actually, I wouldn't take it rhetorically at all, but as someone questioning my beliefs based on their perception of them, yet by grace giving me the chance to explain. Each of us is different, though, and I accept those differences will cause communication problems (especially as you further note, in this wonderfully expressive medium ;0). 

>In large measure I see the people here as reading scripture with "Disney Vision" and that is why we get so much irrational resistance. 

I think most of the resistance is due to the on/off problem of either you are abusing your wife or you are not touching her. Scripture is clear, though not direct, about spoucal abuse and how it has no place in a Godly marriage. It is the fear of crossing that line that turns people off directly, without much thought. 

I am familiar with Christians who are involved in DD, though not directly. I am no more comfortable with it in my marriage today as I was before meeting them, though I can understand where they and you come from. In this case, I consider myself as the weaker brother of Romans 14 and will not practice it, unless and until the Holy Spirit will direct me. He has not, so I remain where I am, and happily so. One can be a leader without it. 

>I think what is more likely than either is that BOTH Paul and Barnabas were correct, but they could not see it. Had either caved in on that particular point Mark may have lost his way, either from being crushed by discouragement on another hard missionary journey, or from being abandoned by BOTH of his mentors. In a very real sense, Paul and Barnabas' argument gave us our first Gospel. (Chronologically Mark was written first.) 

Was either Paul or Barnabbas a weak leader? 

Right now we are in a situation where I have kicked my nephew out of our houses (1 year ago, this month) for his drug use and irresponsibiity. It has only been in this past last month that he has begun to grow up. He now faces a trial and potential jail time for a crime committed a few months ago, that he ran from. He was 17 at the time of committing the crime, 18 now. He is about to go to court and plead guilty, do his time, and start over. All of this was decisions he made on his own, then told me about. He has shown real growth, but still needs much prayer. 

>Except that it was not for his own benefit, Paul seems to be guilty of "Lording it over" as many anti-Paul voices will quickly point out with out my prompting. I feel your definition is too expansive. 

I would suggest then that Paul was not "Lording it over them." Note that througout Paul's epistles, he always refers to himself not only as a servant of Christ, but often as a servant of the particular church he is writing to. He didn't look out after his own interests in any example I can find other then the John-Mark example. Yet God used that as well. 

As to unrebuked sin, Abraham twice and Isaac once lied about their wives to save their own hides. There is no direct rebuke of them in scripture. Yet it showed both a lack of faith in the promises of God to them directly and it was bearing false witness. 

We seem to have gotten off of the original subject, interestingly enough. We do agree, we need better leaders and I don't think we are in disagreement of what a leader is, we just approach it from different sides. You come from the leader side, me from the servant side. 

Good conversation. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/27/2002 7:18 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (223 of 271)  
 
  295.223 in reply to 295.222  
 
Hi Scott,

 

Prayer Request noted and acknowledged!

 

It should go without saying that we Christians are in prayer for one another and the families of one another and the other visitors while visiting the forum.

 

Thanks for making your requests known and I encourage Everyone to present prayer requests at any time in any posting.

 

All the Best to you and your Family,

And Praying for you & your Family,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/27/2002 7:39 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (224 of 271)  
 
  295.224 in reply to 295.222  
 
Scott.. 
This truly puzzles me. You said:***I am familiar with Christians who are involved in DD, though not directly*** 

223 posts and you finally say that? You watched them totally crucify me and you never mentioned this? I am truly puzzled by that..unless you were afraid they were going to crucify you too. One small post saying "gee, i have heard about this and they are good Christian people" would have gone far. 

Evil lives when good men do nothing. 

Karen
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/27/2002 7:46 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (225 of 271)  
 
  295.225 in reply to 295.220  
 
<<<Karen posted, in several parts, a rather lenghty essay that used lots of scripture to support a principle of Domestic Discipline>>> 
Most of what she posted was opinion, and the only way scripture posted could mean what she says it means is through perversion. If you're going to pervert scripture, you can make any of it mean what you want it to. However, if you read the scripture in context with the verses proceding and following it; it does not acknowledge anything about what she proclaims! 

<<<rod and chastening were used in the OT>>> 

They either refer to chastening our children, which a wife is not; or to God chastening us! There are no references about the rod that tells you to whip your mate. There are also no references to chasten or chastening of your mate. Because there are none. How can one believe in a God that tells you to love your wife as Christ loves the Church [Which means He would do anything to help it, and nothing to hurt it; including give up His life, which we all know He did] and then try to justify a violence on your spouse? 

<<<that would be a "wisdom" call>>> 

What "wisdom" do you see in beating your spouse? 

<<<Perhaps this is an important issue because we live in a world that is drunk on the worst of feminism. This drunkeness has swept through the church, even to some of the most conservative corners. I have come to believe that we at least need to restore symbols of authority in order to have a healthy body of believers. 
>>> 

If they choose Feminism over Christ, that is something He will judge and punish them for. It is up to a Christian man to maintain authority in his family; but it does not give any of us the right to beat them into submission. If the woman refuses to allow the husband to be the authority, then this is grounds to separate. If she doesn't want the separation, you must by God's law stay, but you still are not to bend to her authority. 

<<<This is why I brought up the issue of headcovering>>> 

I agree with you on the headcovering. It is Biblical. The DD is not, and deserves no consideration.

May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/27/2002 8:08 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (226 of 271)  
 
  295.226 in reply to 295.222  
 
>><<In large measure I see the people here as reading scripture with "Disney Vision" and that is why we get so much irrational resistance.>><< 
>>I think most of the resistance is due to the on/off problem of either you are abusing your wife or you are not touching her.>> 

*Sigh* now you have jumped to assuming a conclusion that you have not proven, you are just sure that you "know" it. Lets keep this on a higher level. 

My "Disney Vision" comment is fair and accurate, on subjects far beyond this one. 

>>"Scripture is clear, though not direct, about spoucal abuse and how it has no place in a Godly marriage. It is the fear of crossing that line that turns people off directly, without much thought."<< 

...Yet we are leaving the issue undefined, and assume the worlds definitions. 

>>I am familiar with Christians who are involved in DD, though not directly. I am no more comfortable with it in my marriage today as I was before meeting them, though I can understand where they and you come from. In this case, I consider myself as the weaker brother of Romans 14 and will not practice it, unless and until the Holy Spirit will direct me. He has not, so I remain where I am, and happily so. One can be a leader without it.<< 

Okay. 

>><<I think what is more likely than either is that BOTH Paul and Barnabas were correct, but they could not see it. Had either caved in on that particular point Mark may have lost his way, either from being crushed by discouragement on another hard missionary journey, or from being abandoned by BOTH of his mentors. In a very real sense, Paul and Barnabas' argument gave us our first Gospel. (Chronologically Mark was written first.) >><< 

>>Was either Paul or Barnabbas a weak leader?<< 

No, but the point was each person can be right yet the other person cannot grasp how two positions could be correct without seeing how the other person is also correct. 

>>Right now we are in a situation where I have kicked my nephew out of our houses (1 year ago, this month) for his drug use and irresponsibiity. It has only been in this past last month that he has begun to grow up. He now faces a trial and potential jail time for a crime committed a few months ago, that he ran from. He was 17 at the time of committing the crime, 18 now. He is about to go to court and plead guilty, do his time, and start over. All of this was decisions he made on his own, then told me about. He has shown real growth, but still needs much prayer.<< 

Prayer request noted. I Pray the Lord guides his path. 

>><<Except that it was not for his own benefit, Paul seems to be guilty of "Lording it over" as many anti-Paul voices will quickly point out with out my prompting. I feel your definition is too expansive.>><< 

>>I would suggest then that Paul was not "Lording it over them." Note that througout Paul's epistles, he always refers to himself not only as a servant of Christ, but often as a servant of the particular church he is writing to. He didn't look out after his own interests in any example I can find other then the John-Mark example.<< 

I don't think he was even doing so there. 

>>Yet God used that as well.<< 

As I had mentioned, I actually think BOTH of them were correct, yet each person could not see it. 

>>As to unrebuked sin, Abraham twice and Isaac once lied about their wives to save their own hides. There is no direct rebuke of them in scripture. Yet it showed both a lack of faith in the promises of God to them directly and it was bearing false witness.<< 

But does not scripture name that as such? Scripture makes it clear that Abraham paniced and lied. I'm not sure exactly how that speaks to the point. 

>>We seem to have gotten off of the original subject, interestingly enough. We do agree, we need better leaders and I don't think we are in disagreement of what a leader is, we just approach it from different sides. You come from the leader side, me from the servant side.<< 

Well, again, like Major Joppolo in "A Bell for Adano" it is really possible to be both. In fact, it is necessary. I think you would find this book a worthwhile read. It is short (150 pages?) and very readable. 

>>Good conversation.<< 

Very good, bless you. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/27/2002 8:24 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (227 of 271)  
 
  295.227 in reply to 295.225  
 
<<<Karen posted, in several parts, a rather lenghty essay that used lots of scripture to support a principle of Domestic Discipline>>> 
>>Most of what she posted was opinion, and the only way scripture posted could mean what she says it means is through perversion.<< 

So you assert, yet if what you say is true it should take you no time at all to go through it and destroy it in detail. I suspect, however, the you have not even read it. 

>>If you're going to pervert scripture, you can make any of it mean what you want it to. However, if you read the scripture in context with the verses proceding and following it; it does not acknowledge anything about what she proclaims!<< 

Bald assertion. 

<<<rod and chastening were used in the OT>>> 

>>They either refer to chastening our children, which a wife is not; or to God chastening us!<< 

Patently untrue. There are more referrences towards using the rod on adults than there is on using it on children. If you knew your bible, you would know that. If you wanted to know the truth you would do the word study. 

>>There are no references about the rod that tells you to whip your mate. There are also no references to chasten or chastening of your mate. Because there are none.<< 

Partially true. Use of the rod is ordained for adults as well as children and I see no specific exemptions for wives. 

>>How can one believe in a God that tells you to love your wife as Christ loves the Church [Which means He would do anything to help it, and nothing to hurt it; including give up His life, which we all know He did] and then try to justify a violence on your spouse?<< 

The very words you use are the words that some christians use against children. While wives and children are very different, the argument you use is not valid unless it is valid against the use of the rod in BOTH cases. 

<<<that would be a "wisdom" call>>> 

>>What "wisdom" do you see in beating your spouse?<< 

What wisdome do you see in God Chastening us? 

<<<Perhaps this is an important issue because we live in a world that is drunk on the worst of feminism. This drunkeness has swept through the church, even to some of the most conservative corners. I have come to believe that we at least need to restore symbols of authority in order to have a healthy body of believers.>>> 

>>If they choose Feminism over Christ, that is something He will judge and punish them for. It is up to a Christian man to maintain authority in his family; but it does not give any of us the right to beat them into submission. If the woman refuses to allow the husband to be the authority, then this is grounds to separate.<< 

Actually, this is a point we agree on. DD is a practice that is used by couples who voluntarily adopt this as an aid in realizing the goal of submission. 

>>If she doesn't want the separation, you must by God's law stay, but you still are not to bend to her authority.<< 

We may be back to disagreement here. If my wife refuses to follow my leadership, a time may come that I give an choice, and pack her bags for her if she chooses to live a life of rebellion. 

<<<This is why I brought up the issue of headcovering>>> 

>>I agree with you on the headcovering. It is Biblical. The DD is not, and deserves no consideration.<< 

You biases are preventing you from a rational analysis. You "may" be right, but you have not honestly done it by the numbers, so you do not really know one way or the other.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/27/2002 9:24 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (228 of 271)  
 
  295.228 in reply to 295.227  
 
<<<however, the you have not even read it.>>> 
I have, and it says nothing of mate whipping. 

<<<There are more referrences towards using the rod on adults than there is on using it on children.>>> 

Since you claim to be learned and that I don't know the Word, please post the scripture to back this up, for my education. 

<<<What wisdome do you see in God Chastening us?>>> 

God chastening us is to save us from Hell, as He tells us to do with our children, and again where is the scripture to back up your wife beating? 

<<<We may be back to disagreement here. If my wife refuses to follow my leadership, a time may come that I give an choice, and pack her bags for her if she chooses to live a life of rebellion.>>> 

Then this is a point you disagree with God on. maybe you don't know the Word as well as you think. 

1 Corinthians 7:12-15 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 

So, I guess by your terms, the following verses give the wife the right to beat the husband? 

1 Corinthians 7:3-4 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 


May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/27/2002 10:04 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (229 of 271)  
 
  295.229 in reply to 295.228  
 
<<<however, the you have not even read it.>>> 
>>I have, and it says nothing of mate whipping.<< 

You say that as if the case built of authority which God gives men over his family means nothing. You may have read it, but I am not sure you comprehended anything. 

<<<There are more referrences towards using the rod on adults than there is on using it on children.>>> 

>>Since you claim to be learned and that I don't know the Word, please post the scripture to back this up, for my education.<< 

It is late, and I do not feel like doing your homework for you tonight. 

<<<What wisdom do you see in God Chastening us?>>> 

>>God chastening us is to save us from Hell, as He tells us to do with our children, and again where is the scripture to back up your wife beating?<< 

You neatly clipped my answer to you that was in the previous post. 

Do you have a specific exemption for wives (or anybody for that matter) from the rod? 

<<<We may be back to disagreement here. If my wife refuses to follow my leadership, a time may come that I give an choice, and pack her bags for her if she chooses to live a life of rebellion.>>> 

>>Then this is a point you disagree with God on. maybe you don't know the Word as well as you think. 

1 Corinthians 7:12-15 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.<< 

Do you think that this means that a wife may live in abject rebellion while under the same roof? I think you are reading far too much into the text. 

If my unbelieving wife is willing to live with me as her husband and her head, great. You seem to think that there is no limit on any evil or rebellion, short of adultery, that would warrant a husband saying, "stay or go" to his wife. 

>>So, I guess by your terms, the following verses give the wife the right to beat the husband? 

1 Corinthians 7:3-4 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.<< 

Ah, this is a specific reminder that Moses (whom you say is a liar) forbade husbands and wives denying each other sexual congress. It doesn't speak to anything beyond that, as you should well know.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/28/2002 8:08 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (230 of 271)  
 
  295.230 in reply to 295.228  
 
Thanks for your reply to my other questions. 
I have a few more, if you dont mind: 

Do you watch TV? Socialize with friends? Go out to dinner? What do you do with leisure time? Do you only read the bible and nothing else? 

Do you and your wife play bridge or chess or dominos or other for leisure activity? ( I personally love bridge..but we dont keep score LOL) 

Just curious about your lifestyle. Don't mean to get too personal. 




  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/28/2002 8:11 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (231 of 271)  
 
  295.231 in reply to 295.224  
 
Karen, 
Grace and peace to you. 

You have done a good job standing up for yourself. I didn't see you as needing any help, but I apologize if I was wrong. 

>One small post saying "gee, i have heard about this and they are good Christian people" would have gone far. 

I could not make that post. While I know of Christians involved, my contact with them was very limited and 3+ years ago. I studied what they said and found it not for me. I cannot judge how good of Christian people because I cannot judge people based on these message board formats. There are too many fakes out there to do that. 

Again, though, I apologize for not speaking earlier. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/28/2002 8:13 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (232 of 271)  
 
  295.232 in reply to 295.231  
 
Thanks for your kind and generous reply. I really am not a flake LOL. I have just found you to be one of the few people who didnt immediately shriek insults. 
I understand your position completely and agree..its not for everyone. 

karen



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/28/2002 8:33 am  
To:  Rtartan   (233 of 271)  
 
  295.233 in reply to 295.226  
 
Grace and peace to you 
--- 
>><<In large measure I see the people here as reading scripture with "Disney Vision" and that is why we get so much irrational resistance.>><< 
>>I think most of the resistance is due to the on/off problem of either you are abusing your wife or you are not touching her.>> 

*Sigh* now you have jumped to assuming a conclusion that you have not proven, you are just sure that you "know" it. Lets keep this on a higher level. 
--- 
I was attempting to describe how most I believe most people view the issue, my wording was poor, for that I apologize. 

I believe most people see this as a black/white issue of either one is not using DD or one is abusing his wife. That is why they are resistant, and I would not call the resistance irrational, based on their knowledge it is only rational, though there may be ignorance involved. Also, good people may come to different conclusions of what scripture means. That has more to do with where they are in life and what the Holy Spirit has seen fit to reveal to them. 

---- 
>>We seem to have gotten off of the original subject, interestingly enough. We do agree, we need better leaders and I don't think we are in disagreement of what a leader is, we just approach it from different sides. You come from the leader side, me from the servant side.<< 

Well, again, like Major Joppolo in "A Bell for Adano" it is really possible to be both. In fact, it is necessary. I think you would find this book a worthwhile read. It is short (150 pages?) and very readable. 
--- 

Not only possible, but for real Godly leadership, necessary. Both aspects need to be taught as one. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/28/2002 9:28 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (234 of 271)  
 
  295.234 in reply to 295.233  
 

>>Grace and peace to you<< 
And also to you. 

--- 
<>><<In large measure I see the people here as reading scripture with "Disney Vision" and that is why we get so much irrational resistance.>><<> 

>>>I think most of the resistance is due to the on/off problem of either you are abusing your wife or you are not touching her.>>>> 

<<*Sigh* now you have jumped to assuming a conclusion that you have not proven, you are just sure that you "know" it. Lets keep this on a higher level.>> 

--- 

<<I was attempting to describe how most I believe most people view the issue, my wording was poor, for that I apologize.>> 

Okay. 

<<I believe most people see this as a black/white issue of either one is not using DD or one is abusing his wife. That is why they are resistant, and I would not call the resistance irrational, based on their knowledge it is only rational, though there may be ignorance involved. Also, good people may come to different conclusions of what scripture means. That has more to do with where they are in life and what the Holy Spirit has seen fit to reveal to them.>> 

If they had read what was posted and said, "So a couple can agree to this and work this in their marriage, that is there business, but for my family, I don't see it." 

While you are correct that their may be ignorance involved what we have not heard from anyone is, "I am doubtful but I am willing to give the issue further study." Hence, to a very large degree, the ignorance is willful. Scriptural arguments have been posted. They may be WRONG INTERPS, but the were posted and never debunked. I have offered to give people further information, yet no one has asked. If I am wrong, no one can tell me why, and they don't seem to know enough to even know what I am talking about. 

Willful ignorance is quintisential irrationality. 

With the exception of your posts, what we have had here opposing this is what Karen called "shreiking voices." 

There are Marriages where having a DD relationship is totally unwise. There are also marriages where DD is not an issue because they are in total harmony. Yet that a Husband and wife might choose this particular tool is the most unthinkable barbaric thing going. 

Christians are supposed to be thinking people. I have not seen it here too often. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   1/28/2002 11:22 am  
To:  Rtartan   (235 of 271)  
 
  295.235 in reply to 295.234  
 
>Willful ignorance is quintisential irrationality. 
Unless they consider the topic completely unimportant, but then, if they did, they wouldn't post on this thread at all. 

>There are Marriages where having a DD relationship is totally unwise. There are also marriages where DD is not an issue because they are in total harmony. Yet that a Husband and wife might choose this particular tool is the most unthinkable barbaric thing going. 

On the first two sentances I agree. I'm not sure what you meant by the last sentance. 


The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit 
Scott 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/28/2002 1:12 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (236 of 271)  
 
  295.236 in reply to 295.229  
 
<<<It is late, and I do not feel like doing your homework for you tonight.>>> 
An excuse for one who has no proof. Post the scripture and I will answer your last post. I've answered your questions, whether you believe them wrong or not, I answered them. If you don't have enough respect to answer mine, then we have no more to discuss on this subject. 


May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Jim (pentitent)    1/28/2002 1:23 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (237 of 271)  
 
  295.237 in reply to 295.230  
 
<<<Do you watch TV?>>> 
I watch Jeopardy and news. Everything else is pretty much garbage. 

<<<Socialize with friends?>>> 

The Lord tells me to fellowship with people of like-mind. He also tells me to withdraw from those that are not of God. Yes, I have friends that believe the whole true Word as God put forth. I do not have any secular or wrong believing friends. As far as I'm concerned, if I had no friends but Jesus, who is always with me, that would suffice. 

<<<Go out to dinner?>>> 

Once in a blue moon. My wife has congestive heart failure and is supposed to stay away from the fatty foods most restaurants serve. 

<<<What do you do with leisure time? Do you only read the bible and nothing else?>>> 

Fellowship and read and study the Bible. Why would anyone who loves God need anything more. Especially when we are told to avoid worldly entanglements. 

<<<Do you and your wife play bridge or chess or dominos or other for leisure activity?>>> 

We play dominos and cribbage. 

<<<Just curious about your lifestyle. Don't mean to get too personal.>>> 

A Christian should have nothing to hide. If God can look on what we are, then it doesn't matter who else does. 


May God bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/28/2002 4:21 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (238 of 271)  
 
  295.238 in reply to 295.232  
 
You and I know that it may not be for everyone, but what amazes me is that people froth at the mouth that it CANNOT be for ANYONE. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/28/2002 4:33 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (239 of 271)  
 
  295.239 in reply to 295.235  
 
>><<Willful ignorance is quintisential irrationality.>><< 

<<Unless they consider the topic completely unimportant, but then, if they did, they wouldn't post on this thread at all.>> 
Exactly. 

There are lots of threads on every forum I don't read much less respond to, if I am going to take the time to read and reply, I will not do so without thinking through what I am going to say and why. 

>><<There are Marriages where having a DD relationship is totally unwise. There are also marriages where DD is not an issue because they are in total harmony. Yet that a Husband and wife might choose this particular tool is the most unthinkable barbaric thing going.>><< 

<<On the first two sentances I agree. I'm not sure what you meant by the last sentance.>> 

LOL, Right, that is what you get for typing replies while eating chicken. 

What I meant to say is this. "Yet if a Husband and wife might choose to use this particular tool, why do they (the irrational posters) think that this is the most unthinkably barbaric thing in the world?" 

I hope that made better sense! 

<<The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit>> 

And also with you. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Rtartan   1/28/2002 6:17 pm  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (240 of 271)  
 
 From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/28/2002 7:56 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (241 of 271)  
 
  295.241 in reply to 295.240  
 
So for those who want to treat their wives like disobedient slaves, then DD is just the thing for them.

 

As for the rest of us we will love, honor, cherish and respect the wife that God has blessed us with.

 

Have a Living in Jesus :o) Day,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/29/2002 7:40 am  
To:  Jim (pentitent)    (242 of 271)  
 
  295.242 in reply to 295.236  
 
Oh yes. 
There is one other scripture that has an application here. 

"Faithful are the wounds of a Friend" 

While the context primarily metephorical, there is no way that it can be seen as exclusively as a metephor. 

Is not my wife my friend? 

If a wounding with words is at times appropriate, how can we say with absolute certainty that a physical wound is not appropriate? We cannot. A Husband and wife may both agree that a wound in the flesh may in be far less painful than a wound to the soul that words can produce? Why do any of you deny that this can be a valid choice? 

Both of these pains are far less painful than refusing to deal with sin, which is the option too many christian couples opt for.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/29/2002 7:42 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (243 of 271)  
 
  295.243 in reply to 295.241  
 
False Dichotomy, based on a very selective reading. 
Deep down you know better.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/29/2002 12:07 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (244 of 271)  
 
  295.244 in reply to 295.241  
 
I want you to know, I have never said a personal word about this yet, but i will say this. We practice DD, and i have never been so loved, honored, or cherished. Ever. I am not treated as a slave. I have a wonderful career, I do none of the cooking ( I am a rotten cook), I am treated like a queen. That has been my personal experience. 
karen



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/29/2002 1:08 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (245 of 271)  
 
  295.245 in reply to 295.244  
 
The more I read and study the issue, the more I am convinced that your experience is typical. 
Of course David will somehow say we are "advertising" even though we are both attached.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/29/2002 1:09 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (246 of 271)  
 
  295.246 in reply to 295.245  
 
I am not advertising...if I was advertising, I wouldnt be doing it here...This is about monogamy and commitment and strength of a loving relationship. 
karen



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/29/2002 1:27 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (247 of 271)  
 
  295.247 in reply to 295.245  
 
Rtartan,

 

This topic was originally presented as a discussion. The advertising is referring to the attempts to imposes this lifestyle on those who do not already practice it. Advertising was not used in the context of getting a date and certainly it doesnt sound like a topic to discuss to get a first date. Somehow I think the topic has to come up later and not at first in a relationship and it sounds like you are very accomplished at Tweaking words and word meanings to remain within your guidelines of truth and deception.

 

As in since you maintain that you are attached but did not mention that you are married I take it that you practice this with someone other than a wife.

 

I asked where this fits into Christian dating and twice you have remained silent, a major feet for you on any occasion, so I take it that you dont want it know that you advocate striking someone that is still the daughter of another man and not your wife.

 

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/29/2002 1:32 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (248 of 271)  
 
  295.248 in reply to 295.246  
 
EXACTLY! 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/29/2002 2:06 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (249 of 271)  
 
  295.249 in reply to 295.248  
 
My point is that it is the Father that is in authority over his children until they marry or leave his house.

 

If  the father says that the daughter is to be home at a certain time then it is the obligation of both the daughter and the date to have her home according to the fathers decision.

 

In other words you wouldnt have the authority to spank her for not remaining out with you and instead obeying her father.

 

I take it that you do not discuss this behavior with the father and get his prior approval or permission as someone that is now presenting themselves in the position of an authority figure, who uses physical force over their daughter.

 

It sounds very much like this whole practice is treated and kept in the dark like the dirty little secret it is!

 

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/29/2002 2:21 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (250 of 271)  
 
  295.250 in reply to 295.247  
 
Um...David? I answered you re: dating...Do i not count? It was originally my post..Or are you such a mysogenist that you wont answer me? 
karen



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/29/2002 2:23 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (251 of 271)  
 
  295.251 in reply to 295.249  
 
David.. 
***It sounds very much like this whole practice is treated and kept in the dark like the dirty little secret it is!**** 

Did you discuss your proposed sexual life with your wife with your father-in-law???????? Not everything PRIVATE is a dirty little secret. 

karen



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/29/2002 2:33 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (252 of 271)  
 
  295.252 in reply to 295.251  
 
Hi,

 

Now you are saying that it Is a part of the sexual practice? 

 

You are also talking about sex which takes place after the marriage, I asked about this discipline activity taking place during Christian Dating, and yes,thank you, I did see your response that you dont think it should be practiced until after the marriage.

 

Yes, I have been deliberately avoiding postings to you because they seem to spark so much animosity from you that I would rather try to avoid it.

 

This time I was again specifically asking Rtartan the question about Christian dating behavior.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/29/2002 3:01 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (253 of 271)  
 
  295.253 in reply to 295.247  
 
>>This topic was originally presented as a discussion. The advertising is referring to the attempts to imposes this lifestyle on those who do not already practice it.<< 
Which I have not done. What I DO want to do is at least get people to think about the issue (so far it seems that I have been unsuccessful) and understand that it can be a genuinely helpful tool in some people's lives. 

It isn't for everybody. I never said it was. Neither has Karen. 

I >>DO<< know some marriages that have, in the words of the married couples involved, been improved and in some cases "Saved." 

Through the years I have observed marriages that might have been helped with a DD realationship, and certainly could not have been HURT by it, as the relationships died miserable and horrid deaths. 

In each of these particular cases, they theoretically understood that the Man was supposed to be the head of the household, yet when the time came to put theory into practice, they did not do it. 

>>Advertising was not used in the context of getting a date and certainly it doesnt sound like a topic to discuss to get a first date.<< 

Thank you for that clarification. BTW the woman I am now dating is someone I met on a Christian Singles DD site. We understand what is to be expected in our marriage, in that we can talk openly about it. 

No, she is not a toothless looser, but a college graduate who had a most prestegious job in downtown Manhattan before 9-11. Since then, her company laid off half its workforce, and she has had to take a job a step below her, but she is still doing better than most. 

She is quite bright and articulate. She can fairly be described as a Proverbs 31 woman. Who are you to tell her that this is not a choice that she should choose. 

No, in the eight months we have been dating, we have not slept together, nor do we intend to until the day we marry, if that is what is to be. I have not seen any part of her body that would not be covered by a MODEST bathing suit. (Kinda figure that I have to put the term modest in these days in order for it to means anything.) 

>>Somehow I think the topic has to come up later and not at first in a relationship and it sounds like you are very accomplished at Tweaking words and word meanings to remain within your guidelines of truth and deception.<< 

So now I do Clinton speak? Please furnish examples. 

I think that I have been rather plainspoken, whereas if anyone here has been guilty of deception, I think that both Karen and I can build a pretty good case against you. 

>>As in since you maintain that you are attached but did not mention that you are married I take it that you practice this with someone other than a wife.<< 

My girlfriend of eight months, and we do NOT practice it regularly at all. Suffice it to say that along with the details listed above, you really are not entitled to details. 

>>I asked where this fits into Christian dating and twice you have remained silent, a major feet for you on any occasion, so I take it that you dont want it know that you advocate striking someone that is still the daughter of another man and not your wife.<< 

Frankly, you are not the one to claim the moral high ground here. I have posted a number of questions that you have ignored outright, and have answered only snippets of other posts. Unless you choose to engage this topic more thoroughly, do not presume that I owe you annything.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/29/2002 3:27 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (254 of 271)  
 
  295.254 in reply to 295.249  
 
>>My point is that it is the Father that is in authority over his children until they marry or leave his house.<< 
Well what happened is that she married her college sweetheart who was a nice Christian boy, who ended up denying his faith and launching himself into a life of genuine immorality. You know, "immorality," the stuff the Bible specifically condemns? 

So she is on her own now, looking for a good Christian man. I'd like to think she has found one. 

>>If the father says that the daughter is to be home at a certain time then it is the obligation of both the daughter and the date to have her home according to the fathers decision.<< 

Agreed. In her case, pappa is gone. 

>>In other words you wouldnt have the authority to spank her for not remaining out with you and instead obeying her father.<< 

If she had a dad, you would be correct. 

>>I take it that you do not discuss this behavior with the father and get his prior approval or permission as someone that is now presenting themselves in the position of an authority figure, who uses physical force over their daughter.<< 

Sadly, there is no one. She is of age, and has been on her own since her hubby went off the deep end a couple of years ago. Would you suggest that I call Miss Cleo to talk to her dad? 

>>It sounds very much like this whole practice is treated and kept in the dark like the dirty little secret it is!<< 

You have a fragment of a point, but no more than that. We do not broadcast what we do, or for the most part INTEND to do. 

Why? Shouldn't my experience HERE answer that question? Unthinking prejudice is hard to deal with. I can engage and break down rational objections, but when they are not rational, what can be done? 

The joke of it is that people (I am speaking of fairly conservative Evangelical Christians here) tend to be okay with the idea of spanking, et al, if it is just an odd little sexual expression. They tend to really get nutty over the idea of genuine Domestic Discipline. 

"God will understand, it is the NEIGHBORS that I worry about!" 

My girlfriend and I have already agreed that if some busybody finds out about us, we will play up the idea of "Hey, you know that you cannot account for what some people think is fun..." and laugh it off. This will be the truth, but not be the whole truth, but then, I am not sure that everyone, or anyone, is entitled to that. 

Least of all those who have no intention of being fairminded. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/29/2002 3:51 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (255 of 271)  
 
  295.255 in reply to 295.252  
 
>>Now you are saying that it Is a part of the sexual practice?<< 
What I have said from the beginning is that it has strong sexual overtones for some people. Not necessarily everyone. 

What I have ALSO said is that this is about far more than sex and sexuality. 

>>You are also talking about sex which takes place after the marriage, I asked about this discipline activity taking place during Christian Dating, and yes,thank you, I did see your response that you dont think it should be practiced until after the marriage.<< 

I believe that sexual behavior happens between virtually all courting couples. They cuddle while watching TV, they wrestle, they have tickle-fights, etc. as do we. Sometimes they even spank. 

What is forbidden is having sexual intercourse before marriage. We have not done that, nor will we. We have not seen any private parts, or been in a state of undress. 

You may argue that something we might do might be unwise, but that can only be said in the context of accidently getting ourselves overheated and taking a roll in the hay. 

The day we get married, can you have a rational Biblical objection to any of it? 

>>Yes, I have been deliberately avoiding postings to you because they seem to spark so much animosity from you that I would rather try to avoid it.<< 

That might have something to do with your namecalling and false accusations to her of being a supporter of the Mormonism. If that is not grounds for just animosity, I don't know what is. 

>>This time I was again specifically asking Rtartan the question about Christian dating behavior.<< 

Which I finally decided to answer inspite of your behavior mentioned above, and the way that you have consistantly refused to engage the discussion. 

Please note the Scott and I have had basically calm, reasoned discussions, eventhough we do not see eye to eye. 

The Fault has not been of Karen's part, nor on mine. I'm willing to forgive and forget, but as it is with salvation in the Gospels, first YOU have to confront your sin.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/29/2002 4:29 pm  
To:  Rtartan   (256 of 271)  
 
  295.256 in reply to 295.255  
 
This topic is about generalities as Karen stated it in her opening post the Concept of dd.

 

I was actually just looking for clarification on your attachment as to whether you are married or not.

 

I think it is out of line to begin to relate the life of your girlfriend on the internet and especially w/o her consent.

 

Further you again didnt even come close to answering my question about where this physical disciplining  activity fits in with Christian Dating. You did however give a scenario that if the divorced girls father is deceased it is ok.

 

But in reality this isnt what Christians should be going out and doing on their dates!

 

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/29/2002 4:45 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (257 of 271)  
 
  295.257 in reply to 295.252  
 
***Now you are saying that it Is a part of the sexual practice?*** 
Nope...sayin its private. 

If i promise to be real nice will you talk to me again? 






  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/29/2002 4:52 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (258 of 271)  
 
  295.258 in reply to 295.256  
 
***But in reality this isnt what Christians should be going out and doing on their dates!*** 
For once David, I agree...but if you will be fair, i never ever said that once...I ALWAYS talked of this within the marital relationship. And you must admit there are alot of things that are quite ok within marriage that are not ok when dating. 




  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rtartan   1/29/2002 4:56 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (259 of 271)  
 
  295.259 in reply to 295.256  
 
>>This topic is about generalities as Karen stated it in her opening post the Concept of dd. 
I was actually just looking for clarification on your attachment as to whether you are married or not.<< 

No, once again you asked for more than that. Rereading your post confirms that. 

>>I think it is out of line to begin to relate the life of your girlfriend on the internet and especially w/o her consent.<< 

Reread MY post. I gave you few details, and none that she has not consented to make public herself. I answered circumspectly. 

>>Further you again didnt even come close to answering my question about where this physical disciplining  activity fits in with Christian Dating. You did however give a scenario that if the divorced girls father is deceased it is ok.<< 

Frankly, I am not sure you deserve an answer beyond what I have given. You set the scenario, and it doesn't apply to us. 

>>But in reality this isnt what Christians should be going out and doing on their dates!<< 

If you said that, but allowed that it was a viable option for married couples, we would not have much to discuss. Yet no one here could accuse you of being evenhanded or openmined. 

I gave you an affirmation that She and I have not crossed, and do not plan on crossing, the Biblically mandated limits for unmarried couples. That is information that you and any believer are entitled to, not more. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/30/2002 2:19 pm  
To:  ALL   (260 of 271)  
 
  295.260 in reply to 295.259  
 
To All,

 

I think that this topic has been thoroughly exhausted and I dont really want to see it get into what people personally do or dont do. 

 

I have decided to Close this Discussion 

 

Please post any final comments that you have on this topic and I will select the Close option Friday night at approximately Midnight Pacific Time.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  123four   1/30/2002 7:37 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (261 of 271)  
 
  295.261 in reply to 295.260  
 
Thank you for closing this thread. God 
is pleased and the Christians will be 
pleased as well. God is doing wonderful 
things in these days and let's talk 
some more about Him. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/30/2002 7:54 pm  
To:  123four   (262 of 271)  
 
  295.262 in reply to 295.261  
 
Hi 123four,

 

Yes lets talk about Jesus!

 

Overall it has been very rewarding to be a host of a forum but I would have to say that my #1 disappointment in having a Christian forum is that so many people come here yet they do not talk about Jesus.

 

Thank you for continuing to be an Example of Christian Fellowship!



And I do agree that these are the most exciting of times. God is doing His biggest work right now as the world is getting prepared for the Rapture of Gods Church followed by the 7 year Tribulation period then the Glorious Return of Jesus with us His bride to reign and rule here on earth for 1,000 years. We have much to talk about so it is on to other topics, topics where Jesus is Exalted High and lifted up by our Praises!!


God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   1/30/2002 8:41 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (263 of 271)  
 
  295.263 in reply to 295.262  
 
As John said, "Even so, come quickly, 
Lord Jesus!" 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/31/2002 4:23 am  
To:  123four   (264 of 271)  
 
  295.264 in reply to 295.261  
 
To 123four, How do you know God is pleased? Did He tell you specifically? 
To David, 

Keeping this thread open doesnt preclude people from talking about Jesus. Have you not noticed that this thread produced more posts than you've had in a year? This place is usually dead...this is the most discussion you ever have. I ask you not to control what people talk about. Most people like to discuss meaty subjects. I notice, with all due respect, that those gazillion posts you do with bible study topics never spark a response. 

Please reconsider....



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Messages 265 through 270 of 271 were Deleted    



   From:  David (DavidABrown)    2/4/2002 4:45 pm  
To:  ALL   (271 of 271)  
 
  295.271 in reply to 295.1  
 
<closed discussion>


David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
 
  
 
Well Korah, I promised that I would put you on my "ignore" list but I have not gotten to it yet. 
So I will answer your post, and THEN put you on my ignore list. 

The first instance we have an explicit referrence to beating with a rod is in Exodus 21:20 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished." 

Notice that there is no comment that beating a servant is necessarily wrong, but rather killing the slave, or as we read later in the chapter, perminantly wounding the servant, is wrong. I suppose that the servant could be a youth, or could be an adult. The Bible does not say. Odds are that this is referring to an adult. 

Deuteronomy 25:3 "Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee." 

Please note that this is also a referrence to adults, not children being punished. 

Now on to Proverbs. Prov. 10:13 "In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding." 

It is interesting that the FIRST time Solomon talks about the Rod, it is for adults. Only three chapters Later do we get our first note about using the Rod on children. 

Then we are back to the use of the Rod on adults. Proverbs 17:10 "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool." Then again in Proverbs 19:25 "Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge." and Proverbs 19:29 "Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools." 

Proverbs 20:30 The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly. 

Please notice that this verse does not specify child, but the overall context is for that of adults. 

Proverbs then gives us three referrences to the rod for children and then we are right back to using the Rod on adults. Proverbs 26:3 "A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back." 

Then it closes with another referrence to chastening children. 

There are also other parts of the Bible where the term affliction strongly implies use of the rod. Some are not conclusive (Sarah afflicting Hagar, etc.) yet there is a high probability that chastening is involved. 

Now I have done a little homework for you lazy man. You said that their were NO referrences to adults being punished by the rod, yet the rod is an ordained punishment for adults in Deut. and a recommended punishment for both adults and children in Proverbs. 

Yet you said that this was not so. 

"Ye do err not knowing the scriptures" Korah. 

Of course you will probably want to argue that since it isn't mentioned, perhaps no adult (or child for that matter) was ever chastened, since we do not hear about it in each an every book. That of course is foolishness. 

My study has not been totally exhaustive, but you should be able to see clearly that you are simply wrong, and devoid of understanding.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
