SPLIT: Meaning of divorce in Matthew's Gospel

[Nimeniton]

Not denying reality… simply observing that when I love God above all and my neighbor as myself I will be the optimum that I can be… lust, envy, hatred, loneliness, self-esteem… life is totally different… etc

Angel

This is what you said, *“An unhappy marriage is never the answer, but rejecting God’s Command will always lead us to more pain, more anguish, and less love and happiness!”
*

Now whilst your comments about teenage mothers, abortion and the general selfishness of people are very interesting, may I remind you that the context was that of marriage and divorce

Now rejecting the Church’s teaching against divorce and remarriage does not always lead to pain and unhappiness. To state that it does is a rejection of reality. because there are obviously some second marriages that are relatively happy. And, of course, in a second marriage, a person can be faithful and concerned for their neighbour. And you did use the word "alway" which allows for no exceptions. If you had said sometimes, I would not have questioned your statement.

It should not necessarily be assumed that all a person’s reasons for seeking re-marriage are always selfish. For example it is not unknown for a man , especially, young men to abandon a pregnant woman. This is still very common in the Philippines. Obviously such women do not want their children brought up in poverty and being realistic they do not expect another man to bring up their child and live a celibate life because she is still technically married to another.

It should be remembered that all marriages and in particular monogamous marriages are entered into for some selfish reasons; ie the desired person is pleasant to look at or be with and you want sole sexual rights to them. Of course there are unselfish reasons too.

 

[Nimeniton]

I suggest to you that it is all mental… have you ever heard of a single person in all of history where he/she had died because they did not have sex? The fact of the matter is that there’s no such phenomenon! The other fact is that it is a conscious and willfull act… an while it is true that some of us can become addicted… it is as with any addiction: the less we willfully seek to stop it, the more we will revel in it!

Angel

No I have not heard of a person who died due to lack of sex. Why do you mention it? Have you ever come across anyone who has suggested otherwise?

Sure if one has a lot of testosterone swilling around in one , one has to be careful not to arouse oneself. The mental stimulates the physical and vice verse.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. You may suggest all you like but I am telling you from personal experience that if you have had your testes surgically removed your libido is reduced dramatically. Of, course there is still a mental aspect to it that comes from habit but to say that it is all mental is stretching credulity. Look up the prostate cancer forums and you will see that the orchiectomy is not a popular choice of controlling cancer because there is no chance of getting sexual desire back even though the alternative, hormone drugs are not quite as effective in extending survival. Often the man on hormone treatment will start looking at his wife as a friend rather than a lover and the wife will be the one encouraging him to use viagra, injections etc. The very thought makes me shudder!

And actually I make no attempt to avoid pretty girls because it has very little effect on me . Conscious will is not required, I am simply not interested. In fact I enjoy the calmness that the operation brings, I no longer feel like a dog on heat (mentally I mean). In fact I would say that it is as much biological as mental and in my case I would say mainly biological.

Check out the side effects on webmd.com/prostate-cancer/orchiectomy-surgery. One is loss of sexual interest. Believe me I am more concerned about getting osteoporosis and muscle weakness than the loss of sexual interest. I consider the latter a blessing. I feel sorry for the poor souls struggling with all that testosterone swilling around inside them and the struggle that means. I am glad those days are over and that I no longer have to make an effort. There is no warfare for me just calm. When it came to a choice between extending my life or keeping my libido, I barely hesitated. The attachment to life is the stronger. I made the decision in ten minutes.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I think that the Church (Vatican) in an attempt to contain the contantly increasing divorce rate, even among Catholics, has chosen to ignore that Jesus did clarify that there is an exception to the “no divorce” mandate; I believe that once a spouse (the husband being most likely the one to commit adultery) commits adultery he/she has voided the marriage.since that particular spouse has rejected his/her vows to live in a Sacramental union in God.

Sadly, I keep hearing how even adultery is not a just cause for divorce–so the woman continues to be forced to live tied to a man that has long lost all respect for the Sacrament of marriage, for his wife, for his family, and for God!

Maran atha!

Angel

I don’t kow where you hear that but it isn’t in any Catholic church I’ve been in. What you hear is that if there is a valid marriage in the beginning, it is an act and union made by God and cannot be broken by a human. Hence the licit v. illicit of the Jerusalem Bible

There are valid reasons for a civil divorce but the marriqaqe bond, if valid in the beginning can never be broken by anyone, including the Church. It is the remarriage part that is the issue, not the divorce.

Unless the marriage is declared sacramentally invalid at the beginning, one gets remarried under a cloud of adultery which is the whole issue.

 

[Nimeniton]

The more we rely on ourselves and social pressures the more we ignore God’s Commandments… it is not that we cannot control our sexual impulses… it is that many of us refuse to aplly self-control in most aspects of our lives… so we fail–some of us quite miserably… but instead of seeking God and relying on His Wisdom we look upon Him and His Commandments as a hinderance to “our rights” and “our liberty.”

Angel

Social pressures can be for good to. There are social pressures against murder, stealing etc and many non Christian cultures discourage divorce. Well I would not like to make a blanket statement as to whether certain people can control their sexual urges or not. If you are a Catholic you take it on faith that God will give you sufficient grace.

For a few there is no struggle. Some people are naturally not interested in sex (asexual). For others it is a struggle. Most people need to direct it into marriage. So in effect the sexual urge is not suppressed but re-directed into more morally acceptable areas. For some they have reached a level of addiction that they need the support of others to help them control it. So I would say that for most people controlling sex to the point of complete chastity is not possible the best they can do is direct it into legitimate sexual activities. This is why St Paul says it is better to marry than to burn.

Which brings us back to the person who has been divorced by their spouse. Do they burn or do they marry again? Whether Paul tolerated divorce or not is not the issue. He has set a principle. For some people being chaste is difficult and marriage is an acceptable and legitimate outlet.

 

[Nate13]

Whether virgins or not. St Paul recognises that not all can practice celibacy and that is if some do not marry they will burn. Now it is obvious that the divorced may burn especially the divorced who are young. So what was Paul worried about. Obviously the burning would lead to sexual misdemeanors such as masturbation, fornication, homosexuality and even bestiality. (By the way St Paul addresses this to the unmarried and widows. I am sure some widows can be very old indeed. So to say that this is addressed to only the young and virgins is stretching the point. The widows certainly were not virgins and also some of the unmarried may not have been)!

But I say to the unmarried, and to the* widows:*** It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 1 Cor 7:8-10

I can personally vouch that if one does not burn (I had an orchiectomy to slow the spread of prostate cancer) one has no interest in sex and for that matter in marriage. Although I do seem to have developed an interest in shopping which I never had before!!

Anyway back to the young ( and old) who have been divorced and who will burn. Which is better that they have a second marriage or that they burn with unspeakable sexual practices?

Can you not see your arguing that the Church give the exact same permission for divorce that Moses did? Would you like to go back to that time? I’m also curious as to why you never responded to my post and ignored the context of the verse you quoted from Matthew. You have also failed to show that even if some permission was given for divorce, where is the permission to then again remarry? It seems that God makes it very clear anyone who marries a divorced woman has committed adultery. You have no claim for an “exception” on that verse which prohibits remarriage. I’d also add that your position on divorce seems to be a reiteration of what was already being practiced at that time before Jesus based on the teaching of Moses. If so why would the disciples have been surprised at his teaching here in Matthew to the point at which they asked if it made sense for anyone to get married?

 

[Spirithound]

I believe that once a spouse commits adultery he/she has voided the marriage.since that particular spouse has rejected his/her vows to live in a Sacramental union in God.

This is effectively divorce on demand. How do you get a divorce? One spouse sleeps with another person. That leaves the loophole so wide, most divorces would not be a problem.

Your assertion that the Catholic Church has made a reactionary judgement is also chronologically incorrect. The explosion of divorces only happened in recent decades. What then of the centuries preceding?

 

[Nimeniton]

Can you not see your arguing that the Church give the exact same permission for divorce that Moses did?

From what I can see is that Moses made divorce impossible for women and restricted it for men. There is some suggestion that divorce is permissible for reasons other than sexual misconduct but this seems open to interpretation. Also the law on divorce only applied to free women. I have read that it was not considered to be adultery to have sex with your slave even if she was married to another. Also if a man marries a slave , he may dismiss her simply because she does not please him anymore.Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The exception clause in Matthew is omitted in the other gospels. Whether it is a later interpolation or whether there was some disagreement among the gospel writers, I do not know.

 

[Nimeniton]

The explosion of divorces only happened in recent decades. What then of the centuries preceding?

I think they kept mistresses/lovers and committed adultery but remained married.

 

[MissRose73]

My interpretation is that Jesus may have felt that men could easily divorce their wives and remarry too easily in his day but women back then could not invoke that right easily. He also wanted people to remember that marriage is a life long covenant between 2 people that is unbreakable, and also remember the commandments about no adultery & not coveting other people’s spouses.

 

[jcrichton]

This is what you said, "An unhappy marriage is never the answer, but rejecting God’s Command will always lead us to more pain, more anguish, and less love and happiness!"

Now whilst your comments about teenage mothers, abortion and the general selfishness of people are very interesting, may I remind you that the context was that of marriage and divorce

I was offering the contrast that exists between thought vs. reality.

Now rejecting the Church’s teaching against divorce and remarriage does not always lead to pain and unhappiness. To state that it does is a rejection of reality. because there are obviously some second marriages that are relatively happy. And, of course, in a second marriage, a person can be faithful and concerned for their neighbour. And you did use the word "alway" which allows for no exceptions. If you had said sometimes, I would not have questioned your statement.

…so you are saying that both spouses are happy with moving on, as well as the children (if there were any) and the extended family… and that the next relationships which these spouses form will be full of happiness and joy?

…it’s been my experience that people hold on to even small things from even the premarital period; some leave the failed relationship with the expectation to make the other spouse “pay for it;” while others keep a “mental” bag packed and ready for the next failure… absent of God true happiness is not achieved since we keep longing for something that can never fully fulfill us… hence the absolute.

It should not necessarily be assumed that all a person’s reasons for seeking re-marriage are always selfish. For example it is not unknown for a man , especially, young men to abandon a pregnant woman. This is still very common in the Philippines. Obviously such women do not want their children brought up in poverty and being realistic they do not expect another man to bring up their child and live a celibate life because she is still technically married to another.

…but you see… if the young men would abide in Christ they would understand the predicament that these ladies and their offsgring would face upon being abandoned–they would put away their ego, surrender their wills to God’s and bring forth a loving Christian family–there would be no need for a second or third male figure.

It should be remembered that all marriages and in particular monogamous marriages are entered into for some selfish reasons; ie the desired person is pleasant to look at or be with and you want sole sexual rights to them. Of course there are unselfish reasons too.

…again, this is based on the absence of God–arguably there will always be something that man “a” seeks and finds in woman “b,” but those in Christ are compelled to higher standards than “how much” or “how can I benefit;” further, the relatinship (Sacramental Marriage) is a union in Christ… St. Paul puts it in this basic term: wifes obey your husbands; husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church that He gave His Life for her!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No I have not heard of a person who died due to lack of sex. Why do you mention it? Have you ever come across anyone who has suggested otherwise?

Sure if one has a lot of testosterone swilling around in one , one has to be careful not to arouse oneself. The mental stimulates the physical and vice verse.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. You may suggest all you like but I am telling you from personal experience that if you have had your testes surgically removed your libido is reduced dramatically. Of, course there is still a mental aspect to it that comes from habit but to say that it is all mental is stretching credulity. Look up the prostate cancer forums and you will see that the orchiectomy is not a popular choice of controlling cancer because there is no chance of getting sexual desire back even though the alternative, hormone drugs are not quite as effective in extending survival. Often the man on hormone treatment will start looking at his wife as a friend rather than a lover and the wife will be the one encouraging him to use viagra, injections etc. The very thought makes me shudder!

And actually I make no attempt to avoid pretty girls because it has very little effect on me . Conscious will is not required, I am simply not interested. In fact I enjoy the calmness that the operation brings, I no longer feel like a dog on heat (mentally I mean). In fact I would say that it is as much biological as mental and in my case I would say mainly biological.

Check out the side effects on webmd.com/prostate-cancer/orchiectomy-surgery. One is loss of sexual interest. Believe me I am more concerned about getting osteoporosis and muscle weakness than the loss of sexual interest. I consider the latter a blessing. I feel sorry for the poor souls struggling with all that testosterone swilling around inside them and the struggle that means. I am glad those days are over and that I no longer have to make an effort. There is no warfare for me just calm. When it came to a choice between extending my life or keeping my libido, I barely hesitated. The attachment to life is the stronger. I made the decision in ten minutes.

…what I meant is that we have control over our actions… ie: I once witnessed a child breast-feeding, peeing and getting an erection… the child was totally oblibious to anything other than he was feeding; though it was an inocuous event, the ladies there and myself had a different take on the issue and one of the ladies even made some very sexual comments… the natural happenstance quicky developed into a number of queries about the eroticism of breastfeedig… I was asked my opinion and I suggested that as with the child the body may be reacting to an act… but how the mother internalizes the incident (does it become a fantasy or does she make breast-feeding her child a sexualized thing) makes the event a sexual or a benign experience.

…and while it is true that illments/injuries/medication does affect us physically and mentally… while you may not have a desire for sexual intercourse… you may still be caught in the dilussion that you must make up for it in some fashion… that’s what I mean about mental and being able to control the impulse (libido); I grew up in a culture where when a man/woman had extramartial affairs that person was seen as a wicked heartless fiend–as the “me” generation emerged wicked and heartless became the goals for which to strive (hollowood’s love and spirituality); the values have changed because sex has been made epitamy success/happiness…

…you have been made into a eunuc (a play on Biblical text) and you find it liberating… could it be because you are now free to strive for greater things?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t kow where you hear that but it isn’t in any Catholic church I’ve been in. What you hear is that if there is a valid marriage in the beginning, it is an act and union made by God and cannot be broken by a human. Hence the licit v. illicit of the Jerusalem Bible

There are valid reasons for a civil divorce but the marriqaqe bond, if valid in the beginning can never be broken by anyone, including the Church. It is the remarriage part that is the issue, not the divorce.

Unless the marriage is declared sacramentally invalid at the beginning, one gets remarried under a cloud of adultery which is the whole issue.

…that’s my point… the exception part, I mean; when Jesus states that the Sacrament of Marriage is final except in the case of adultery, is He stating that if a person were to commit adultery the marriage would be void/null or is it as it has been interpreted that the spouses had been having sexual relations prior to the Sacramental Marriage?

If the actual word/term is adultery, how can two unmarried people commit adultery?

Is the word/term making reference to fornication between the two future spouses or is it speaking about a multi-partners relationship?

…and if there is no exception, how can a Sacramental Mariage exist when one or both spouses are having extramarital affairs and refuse to stay within the bonds of the Sacrament?

…so my thought on how the Church could have reinterpreted to exclude even adultery as an exception.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Social pressures can be for good to. There are social pressures against murder, stealing etc and many non Christian cultures discourage divorce. Well I would not like to make a blanket statement as to whether certain people can control their sexual urges or not. If you are a Catholic you take it on faith that God will give you sufficient grace.

For a few there is no struggle. Some people are naturally not interested in sex (asexual). For others it is a struggle. Most people need to direct it into marriage. So in effect the sexual urge is not suppressed but re-directed into more morally acceptable areas. For some they have reached a level of addiction that they need the support of others to help them control it. So I would say that for most people controlling sex to the point of complete chastity is not possible the best they can do is direct it into legitimate sexual activities. This is why St Paul says it is better to marry than to burn.

Which brings us back to the person who has been divorced by their spouse. Do they burn or do they marry again? Whether Paul tolerated divorce or not is not the issue. He has set a principle. For some people being chaste is difficult and marriage is an acceptable and legitimate outlet.

…which brings me back to God… I’ve known people who have struggled with other things… the battle is not any less difficult… how they apply or refuse to apply self-control makes a great difference… one lady I know had a medical limit placed on her daily water intake–before she told me about it she would drink, roughly, about half a gallon of water on a single visit to my home; once I knew about that problem I attempted to help her but she refused to listen… eventually she ended up at a hospital–she is doing quite well after she decided to follow the doctor’s advise!

…for most of us, we do not need to be faced with a death/life experience in order to reclaim our control; many of us just do not care enough to even fight the urge/s… that’s why St. Paul advised that those that did not have the strength should get married… but this Sacramental Marriage is according to Jesus’ design not common wisdom!

…the problem lies in the way that we build our relationship with God… if we hold on to our carnal/corporal values we will always keep falling back to “the spirit is willing but the slesh is weak,” argument… but St. Paul tells us that when we are weak that’s when Christ is strong!

It is in our weakness that Christ will act… but He will not act unless we surrender our will to His!

I hear a similar argument against Priest Celibacy… it seems that the Church is so wrong… forcing those poor Priests and Nuns to live a chaste and celibate life… but tit was made known to them prior to taking their vows that they had to live a chaste and celibate life in a Sacramental Union with Christ… the Sacrament of Marriage is no greater or lesser than that of the Priesthood: they are both a Sacred Union with and in Christ Jesus… but if the person entering into the Sacramental Life is not mature enough he/she ends up emulating the world and embracing worldly values and standards…

Alone I can do nothing (St. John 15:1-10) but in Christ and with Christ I can do all things (Philippians 4:13)… the more we rely on ourselves the more vulnerable we are to the demands of the flesh… as Scriptures say “if you come near to God He will come near to you…” our strength is hidden in Christ: as we take on His yoke, He takes on ours!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is effectively divorce on demand. How do you get a divorce? One spouse sleeps with another person. That leaves the loophole so wide, most divorces would not be a problem.

Your assertion that the Catholic Church has made a reactionary judgement is also chronologically incorrect. The explosion of divorces only happened in recent decades. What then of the centuries preceding?

…I am not in support of divorce… I am attempting to undestand the text in Scriptures and I am suggesting that if the text is as understood (no divorce except if adultery) then two things would happen: adultery on the rise and divorce and remarriage on the rise (hence my summation that perceiving this problem the Church may have moved to exclude the exception through reinterpretation of the text)… still the problem persists: more and more Catholics are being unfaithfull and the majority still continues to be men–so the female spouses are left with no recourse but to allow the men to have their cake and share it with “x” number of partners–the Sacramental Marriage is shanghied as one spouse is made the mental and/or physical punching bag of the other–not to mention the children’s plight…

…as you pointed out the explosion of divorces is recent… which is due to “Catholics” ignoring Church’s Teaching and embracing social/cultural wisdom… in either case (clause/no clause for divorce) the fact is that when we rely on our own abilities we tend to adopt philosophies that hinder both our temporal and spiritual lives!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

From what I can see is that Moses made divorce impossible for women and restricted it for men. There is some suggestion that divorce is permissible for reasons other than sexual misconduct but this seems open to interpretation. Also the law on divorce only applied to free women. I have read that it was not considered to be adultery to have sex with your slave even if she was married to another. Also if a man marries a slave , he may dismiss her simply because she does not please him anymore.Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The exception clause in Matthew is omitted in the other gospels. Whether it is a later interpolation or whether there was some disagreement among the gospel writers, I do not know.

…I think that the issue was not within the known written text but the practice that evolved from the written text (as practice of stoning only the adulterous women while allowing the adulterous men to escape unscathed); Jesus challenges His contemporary Jews to go beyond the standard that eroded as Moses issued the divorce decree, thusly circumventing the Sacramental Union instituted by Yahweh God; once Jesus forces them to acknowledge the true intent of the Sacramental Marriage (“what God has united let no man set asunder…”), even His Disciples find it hard to stomach!

Jesus does not accomodates their discomfort but forces them to aspire to greater understanding and commitment!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think they kept mistresses/lovers and committed adultery but remained married.

…are you implying that Catholics are as immoral as atheists?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JRRTFAN]

…that’s my point… the exception part, I mean; when Jesus states that the Sacrament of Marriage is final except in the case of adultery, is He stating that if a person were to commit adultery the marriage would be void/null or is it as it has been interpreted that the spouses had been having sexual relations prior to the Sacramental Marriage?

If the actual word/term is adultery, how can two unmarried people commit adultery?

Is the word/term making reference to fornication between the two future spouses or is it speaking about a multi-partners relationship?

…and if there is no exception, how can a Sacramental Mariage exist when one or both spouses are having extramarital affairs and refuse to stay within the bonds of the Sacrament?

…so my thought on how the Church could have reinterpreted to exclude even adultery as an exception.

Maran atha!

Angel

Jesus doesn’t say anything about adultery, the word in the Greek is “pornea” which is variously translated or taken to mean illicitness by the Church. So, essentially, if somebody enters into marriage without full consent of the will, without knowledge and recognition of the finality of the vows, etc. the Church recognizes that no sacramental marriage has occurred. If a sacramnetal marriage has occurred even adultery can’t dissolve it.

 

[Nimeniton]

I was offering the contrast that exists between thought vs. reality.

…so you are saying that both spouses are happy with moving on, as well as the children (if there were any) and the extended family… and that the next relationships which these spouses form will be full of happiness and joy?

…it’s been my experience that people hold on to even small things from even the premarital period; some leave the failed relationship with the expectation to make the other spouse “pay for it;” while others keep a “mental” bag packed and ready for the next failure… absent of God true happiness is not achieved since we keep longing for something that can never fully fulfill us… hence the absolute.

Angel

No, I am just saying beware of using the word “always”. It is fairly obvious that divorces often have an effect on the children and family. Having said that some children prefer and even want their parents to be divorced if one of the parents is abusive. Some people are more civilised in how they go about divorces whereas others can be very hostile indeed. Usually there is some sadness. But people can and do learn from their mistakes and sosometimes but not always have a more contented and successful second marriage. It is not really a judgment of good v bad but better v worse.

It is a truism to say that if one pursues what will not make us happy then one won’t be happy. Christians say what is lacking is an absence of God by which they mean not obeying God’s will and to the Buddhist it is expecting the impermanent to be permanent and the insubstantial to be substantial.

 

[Nimeniton]

…but you see… if the young men would abide in Christ they would understand the predicament that these ladies and their offsgring would face upon being abandoned–they would put away their ego, surrender their wills to God’s and bring forth a loving Christian family–there would be no need for a second or third male figure.

Angel

i.e referring to an abandoned single mother looking for male support who wants to live with her, support her child but is happy to forgo sex.

Such selflessness is rare. Most men would look for a woman they can have sex with. This is true of Catholic marriages, a sexual relationship is desired. And most women understand this. They also know that sex helps to bond the relationship at least in the early stages. This is why early sex in a relationship is not a good thing as the bonding creates such desire that one overlooks the faults of the other and whether the relationship can be workable in the long run.

However, you are saying that once a permanent separation takes place then remarriage is not allowed and celibacy must be practiced. Even if the person burns with desire. And as St Paul says it is better to marry than to burn. And as he says this not just to virgins, not just to the unmarried but to widows, he recognises that even those who have been married can still burn with desire.

The situation is that if a husband leaves his wife through death she is free to marry and indulge in sex but if he leaves her for another then she must practice celibacy and does not have the solution to “burning” with desire that the widow has. So, as I said before, it is a catch 22.

Of course divorce should be discouraged but one also has to be practical of people’s capabilities. Having been to a junior seminary, when such places still existed, I became familiar with the many stories of priests who did not have a natural aptitude for chastity such as the use of prostitutes etc.

In my Buddhist days, we were encouraged to practise chastity. It is a very difficult matter to set up the right conditions. Personally I found it very easy when living in nature with no women in sight but not so in the middle of a city. An acquaintance of mine had no problem in a town but had problems if he did not have access to classical music and the fine arts even if he was in the countryside and away from women. The sex drive needs to be sublimated as suppression creates worse problems.

For those who do not have a natural ability to practice permanent chastity it seems to come out in other perverse ways i.e overeating (the deadly sin of gluttony) or irritability (the deadly sin of anger) or compulsive sexual behaviour. This has been my experience from practicing and observing others practicing chastity.

It is my belief that some are not capable of practicing permanent chastity and one does more harm than good by insisting that they comply.

 

[Nimeniton]

…again, this is based on the absence of God–arguably there will always be something that man “a” seeks and finds in woman “b,” but those in Christ are compelled to higher standards than “how much” or “how can I benefit;” further, the relatinship (Sacramental Marriage) is a union in Christ… St. Paul puts it in this basic term: wifes obey your husbands; husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church that He gave His Life for her!

Maran atha!

Angel

A selfless attitude is ideal for the good running of society which is no doubt why society encourages it. At least most people insist on others being more selfless . However, pure and complete selflessness, I have never come across and personally doubt it is possible. It is , of course, a very attractive ideal. But I would say that for even sincere Christians that there is some element of lust in the relationship otherwise it would never become a sexual relationship! Selfishness is very subtle. There is even a spiritual selfishness. You practise your religion to avoid hell and get the rewards of eternal bliss. The sophisticated Christian sometimes does not admit to this and says that they are Christians just for God’s sake. But judging by their admissions to being a sinner, I take what they claim here with a pinch of salt. If they are selfish in material matters then I am sure they are selfish in spiritual ones too.