₦airaland Forum

ColinAdua:
@TV01. Good day.

The Lord had a lot of places to lay His head.
See:
Matthew 21:17 KJV "And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there".

John 1:38-39 KJV "Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour".

And many more like this in The Holy Bible.

Broda, you have come , your point wasn't about simply "laying one' head", it was about "ownership". Read the first of your 50+ points

ColinAdua:
1) Your house is an asset, it appreciates in value, while a wife is a liability that depreciates in value.

ColinAdua:
Telling that man he had no place to lay His head is figurative. If you interpret it that in the real sense "He had no place to lay His head" it contradicts these verses above. Since he had places where He had been laying His head.

If your interpretation of a verse in the Bible contradicts another verse then your interpretation is wrong.

He means simply "don't expect comfortability with me" when He told that man "son of man has no place to lay his head".

Like I told you He owns all the houses on earth, then no need to have a particular house exclusively to Himself since He moved about often.
See:
Psalm 24:1 "The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein".
Phillippians 2:11 "... Jesus Christ [is] Lord, ..."

Check out too the authority which He used in commanding the owner of the house where He wished to enjoy the Last Supper,(Matthew 26:17-18, Mark 14:12-14, Luke 22:7-12).

He didn't beg. He spoke as the Master who owns the House ie the real owner of the house and the good man of the house(Bible didn't even call him the owner of the house) released the house without arguing because he knew that the Master the real owner of the house had come.

As above; I wasn't contradicting the bible, I was juxtaposing "ownership" against lodging/renting (like Paul)
I like this verse myself - Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

TV

...a good man will expect all that and give more. May we be good and our expectations met.


TV

Couldn't be bothered, and saw no reason, too post the whole crock. But in sum;

1. Monogamous marriage is the best and most natural form of pair bonding for which humans are naturally attuned.
2. Incontinence on the part of men or women does not excuse infidelity or polygamy.
3. Neither does hypocrisy on the part of those who claim religion.
4. Likewise the authors desire to justify his using his member like a water hose.

Ring finger

TV

Joy1706:
If feminism can destroy the whole African family unit then not much other than the oppresion of women held it together then.

OP falls flat at the very first sentence. Firstly it assumes "feminism" is simply no more than the fight against oppression of women. Further, it assumes that the stated aim is what it singularly pursues, and all outcomes further only that stated aim.

Secondly it assumes that men cannot be/are not oppressed, thirdly it does not define in any substantive way what oppression actually is As not all may, or will agree on any given definition, taking it as read is at best deceitful.

Joy1706:
(I would not love to add anything to the above. Read that late last night and it kept me awake. It is one of the most powerful things I'll read this year)
If speaking out against oppresion makes you uncomfortable, defensive and afraid, then I am not sorry to say this; you just proved yourself as the oppressor.

As above, a non sequitur.

Joy1706:
"The enemy is fighting marriage and the home by teaching our women feminism". This was said to me by a married man, an elder in a church, who sees nothing wrong in sleeping around and mistreating his wife and then telling me he is entitled to his actions because he is "the" head yet, he is blaming feminism because his wife now knows better than to accept such disrespect.

A canard. Silence challenges to your viewpoint by smearing those who question it. I do not, and have never slept around. I do not mistreat my wife - on the contrary, it's rather the opposite, and neither do I justify wrong-doing or inappropriate behaviour on my part with my "headship". Yet for sure, feminism in it's current guise and what it pushes for is deleterious to the family unit - be that in Africa or anywhere else

Joy1706:
Feminism is not destroying your homes or the 'illusion' you call marriages. Forgive me or not but I am feeling stung and I can't water this down.

Stung, sting, stang, whatever, feminism is a crock

Joy1706:
You refuse to partake in your home and then turn around to blame feminism because you are called upon to truly be a partner?
You breed children and then dump their entire training and grooming on your wife and then turn around to blame feminism when she asks for your participation?
You made vows to dedicate your life to this one woman yet you chase everything on skirt, endangering her physically and healthwise and then turn around to blame feminism because she won't take such from you? Just pick a struggle. You want to rely on the bible to be the head but still pitch tent with saying "you're polygamous in nature" because culture says so when your bible clearly forbids adultery. You'll hang onto anything from anywhere that gives you excuse to oppress another human.

A crock of canards. Feminism is not good because there are bad men, it fails simply on it's own merits, or lack thereof. Just like HRC does not become a good candidate because DT is a bad one .

Joy1706:
You use a religious manual to trample upon another human like you and hide behind the altar of 'headship and submission' and then blame feminism when she knows better?
No sir. Satan has nothing to do with this one. This is all you. Stop pretending to be mad at Feminism. You know who the problem is. Or do you?
You are praying against the spirit of Feminism in me? LOL.
Feminism is not your problem. Your inhumane and inconsiderate actions (wrapped up as culture and religion) is the problem. Fix that.

We have now advanced to "crockery" - find your way to the right room . For Christians, biblical headship and submission are valid scriptural imperatives for marriage. Anything done beyond or outside of what scripture enjoins is not the fault of scripture or Christianity. Don't fault "The Way" because some practice it badly, or deceitfully ascribe it tenets to propagate evil.

Joy1706:
BY ENWONGO CLEOPAS
*just had to share this. So apt*

And thanks for doing so, but like I said, to all intents and purposes, it's worth little more than hyena dung - for the reasons outlined.

Many things, or behaviours may be harming marriage in Africa, however new-era feminism is certainly not helping.

Cheers big ears


TV

Colin, good morning to you.

In heaven there will be no marriage, that is where the promised mansions are. Here on earth, The Lord had nowhere to lay His head, don't doubt or second guess the scriptures .

Even if you claim that Jesus had "the right to marry", the whole point of His ministry was denying himself, and not "grasping" that which was His by right - I know I don't have to point you to the relevant portion of scripture do I .

Marriage is harder, a greater burden, and takes more fortitude than singleness. That is why the disciples said "it is better not to marry". The only recourse - without sin - is then singleness. Which only a few can receive, but is the easier option. But with the gifting of God, both options will be easier for those who are called.

In all, nothing in this world can satisfy, not houses, not wives, not any material thing. A mature Christian knows how to abase and abound . Take this and go in peace .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQAwpMFS_9o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5a-hW9AJQI - with lyrics

As you have the time , please pray for me, and others who are married, that our shoulders would remain broad enough to bear the burden of being husbands and fathers with a grace and an excellence that honours God.


TV

ColinAdua:
You always hide your NO, with contradictory explanations.

So you can't do without a HOUSE, what is the essence of your arguments then? Because I know you can do very well without a wife?

If it's an IRRELEVANT question, then it means all your posts here are IRRELEVANT. Because that is the TOPIC of the thread.

Who told you the Lord has neither a house? "In my Father's house are many mansions means what?

He didn't have a house on earth because all the houses on earth are His, that's why He is God. If He wants to make use of any, no one could've stopped Him.

The life of Paul may have necessitated him not to marry but Apostle Paul never gave that as the reason why he wasn't married neither did he encourage singleness SOLELY on evangelical purposes.

He also gave room for people to remain unmarried if they feel distressed by the present immediate circumstances it can bring. So am not WRONG.

Well, like I said if the question, which is the theme of this Thread is NONSENSICAL to you. It well means all your posts here are NONSENSICAL!

BECAUSE A NAKED MAN CHASING A NAKED MAD MAN IS ALSO MAD.

Do the Bible teach that Jesus Christ did not marry because HE IS GOD AND GOD CANNOT MARRY? Have you not read in the Bible that He is the last Adam? Adam was made exactly in the image of God that don't marry but he married. So if Jesus had wished to marry He would have. He had all the right.

And while on earth He was not entirely GOD. He was God in human flesh, that was why He always called Himself Son of God. That was possible so he can experience all the temptations we are passing through hence He can fully understand our predicament. So He can intercede very well for us.


(""""""It is better not to marry" they said, because of the burden of marriage, due to the expectations therein.
"it is better not to marry" they exclaimed, if you cannot cope, bear with the requirements of marriage.""""""
)

You always use this ,your statements ABOVE to contradict yourself. HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY SINGLENESS IS BETTER AND STILL CONTINUE TO PROVE TO ME THAT SINGLENESS IS NOT BETTER?

HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THAT "ITS BETTER NOT TO MARRY" BECAUSE OF THE BURDEN OF MARRIAGE ETC AND STILL CRITICIZE ME THAT I MADE THE DECISION NOT TO MARRY OUT OF FRUSTRATION, OF NOT WANTING TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF MARRIAGE?

HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THAT THERE'S BURDEN IN MARRIAGE AND STILL MOCK THAT I DECIDED NOT TO CARRY THIS BURDEN. HENCE AM BEING NEGATIVE. YOU TALKING OF THE BURDEN OF MARRIAGE SO YOU KNOW THAT MARRIAGE IS A BURDEN?

Please lets just be truthful sometimes and stop unnecessarily criticizing attacking someone who is brave enough to:

"... foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself" Proverbs 22:3 KJV.


YES! Am trying by God's grace! Thank You Jesus. Cos Bible says:

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that practices righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous" 1 John 3:7 NKJV.


Even though LittleReed here sometimes makes me act harsh.

Thanks Mysticgal for the well researched input and 5minsmadness for your points.

I don't believe rape should be alleged, let alone chargeable/prosecuted between spouses. Marriage pre-dates the law, and as such the law should at best seek to support and buttress the institution, not meddle - and in a lopsided fashion - especially with regard to Christian marriages from my pov.

Neither a husband or wife should be charged with forced or coercive intercourse. Not unless there is real (and in some cases non-consensual) physical harm should the state even be involved. Then charges of battery may be considered and Christianity would agree with that.

From a Christian pov, spouses own each others bodies and should not deny the others calling. If forced or coerced intercourse is rape, then withholding intimacy - unless by consent or due to some valid reason - should also be chargeable. It is not currently on any statutes as far as I am aware.

I couldn't bear to look at my wife - always jumping my bones when I want to snooze, watch the boxing come to NL etc. - and think of her as a rapist


TV

ColinAdua:
You have not answered my question. I need YES or NO.

Read again, I answered in my first sentence. For the avoidance of doubt it was a "no". But that is a simplistic answer to an irrelevant question.
The Lord had neither house nor wife;

Luke 9:58 - And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

ColinAdua:
But like I said earlier I love your politeness though. God bless you for that.

Amen...and you for your zeal.

ColinAdua:
My brother, no one can do without a house but millions of people can do and are doing comfortably without wives. Hence a HOUSE IS VERY BETTER THAN A WIFE!

They serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive, hence the question is somewhat nonsensical in my opinion.

ColinAdua:
Now saying remaining single (I love to call it singlehood) is for puny, weak, irresponsible men is calling Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul puny, weak, and irresponsible. Which is too bad.

Not really; The lives of The Lord and the the Apostle Paul were instructive, in that they could not accommodate wives given their missions.

You know the life of ministry of Paul. His missionary expeditions, his perilous and uncertain lifestyle, his lack of ongoing work, "his end". He simply could not have married or raised children.

Even moreso The Lord. Would God marry? And whom exactly would He marry? He is complete in and of Himself. And "the cup" from which He was to drink when He came in appearance as a man would have precluded marriage. Ergo;

"It is better not to marry" they said, because of the burden of marriage, due to the expectations therein.
"it is better not to marry" they exclaimed, if you cannot cope, bear with the requirements of marriage.

=> "it is better to remain single" if you cannot cope with the expectations, bear the burdens, or your calling or mission precludes it

ColinAdua:
Me and you know that after over 2000years of their existence, these two men are the most popular affirmative responsible men ever in the history of humanity.

Noted, but as I already asked, are you living their lives to the letter?

ColinAdua:
Till you answer Yes or No.

I have answered twice already

ColinAdua:
Meanwhile, see this:
1Corinthians 7:26 "I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress(discomfort, hardship, frustrations, unfaithfulnesses, disappointments, difficulties etc), [I say], that [it is] good for a man so to be".

So Bible gave option for you to remain single if you are frustrated.

...i.e. unable to cope *


TV

^{*or you have a different calling, mission, or gifting}

ColinAdua:
I still ask: CAN YOU DO WITHOUT A HOUSE?

BECAUSE I CAN DO WITHOUT A WIFE.

Ok. No, one cannot do without somewhere to live, one can live without a wife.

Your challenge does not prove anything - one will need a house whether married or single. And one does not have to forego either. Perhaps it is the wrong question?


"It is better not to marry" they said, because of the burden of marriage, due to the expectations therein.
"it is better not to marry" they exclaimed, if you cannot cope, bear with the requirements of marriage.

Remaining single therefore, is for puny, weak, irresponsible men - see logic


TV

^{...it takes a gift to be married and deal with the burden of marriage. It is a gift to remain single and live accordingly}

ColinAdua:
I put you to a CHALLENGE. If you believe am wrong, CUT OFF EVERY LINK WITH YOUR HOUSE AND ANY HOUSE PACK AND RE-LOCATE TO A FIELD OR BUSH. LETS SEE HOW LONG YOUR MARRIAGE WILL LAST. LETS SEE HOW LONG YOU WILL LIVE.

Infact I give your marriage 3 weeks and you 3 months.

Millions in this world can't do without a house for a day while millions are doing happily every day without a wife and you are here arguing blindly.

ANSWER ME CATEGORICALLY, STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF. CAN YOU DO WITHOUT A HOUSE ANY HOUSE IN THIS LIFE EVEN IN ETERNITY??

Answer me.

Lets stop this running in circles and hide and seek, and go to the point.

CAN YOU DO WITHOUT A HOUSE?

I CAN DO WITHOUT A WIFE!!!! A HOUSE IS 51,000,000 TIMES BETTER THAN ANY ..........!

I don't even have a wife so what am I to put here?

ah! ah! Why can't men tell themselves the truth sometimes? Most you always think with your P and emotions.?

ANSWER ME

LET ME PUT YOU TO CHALLENGE! NONSENSE!!!!!

I find this challenge puzzling - perhaps why I thought your OP was joking at first and didn't reply.

Of course I need somewhere to live (a place to stay, preferably my own house). However, one needs that married or single. A wife and a house are not mutually exclusive, or incompatible - one can have both, either or neither.

And though not ideal, people live and raise families under bridges don't they? And no, my wife will not leave me, but that is besides the point, one of the burdens of marriage is to provide for your family.

Colin, you don't have to deride marriage or women, to justify, or celebrate singleness.

Their is no challenge, because the two are not at loggerheads - why are you forcing them to be. Maybe it wasn't the women, maybe it was you . Are you obsessively houseproud?


TV

Hi Colin, may I call you Colin ? Firstly, may I say how much I've enjoyed discussing this with you. Not least because of the obvious zeal you have for your position and the passionate, but polite way you have joined issues. Not that I totally agree, but you certainly made me think. Thanks for that.

And I appreciate your feelings to how women can be, it's hard for a real god-fearing man to find a suitable Christian mate. Many appear to follow some syncretic mix of Christianity and feminism (feminianity ).

Others think marriage is for the pursuit of their individual dreams, forgetting they are created for men and to be helpmeets to them. Not to mention that divorce appears to be at the tip of many tongues and for the flimsiest of reasons. Real haba! .

It's also good to have someone devout in this section. Please cast your net a bit wider. Now, back to business

ColinAdua:
My giddiness is about saying the same thing over and over again and someone in his right thinking sense, who claims he is not confused will still ask me the same question.

Haba!

How many times will I refer you to 1 Corinthians 7, where Apostle Paul said it that it is better to stay single?

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

25Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

I agree that the Apostle Paul adjudges singleness better when it comes to serving the Lord for both men and women. But he also makes it clear that it is by gift, be that due to lack of desire or the ability to suppress it without discomfort

Matthew 19 also makes it clear that celibacy is by gift or circumstance

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Those to whom it has been given are born that way, are unable to due to circumstances (injury, imprisonment etc.), or are able to do so for the KOH sake (gifted).

ColinAdua:
How many times will I state my stand here and someone in his right thinking sense will read it and still tell me I don't have clear cut view.?

I never told you singlesness is for everyone. Didn't you see all the places I talked about FREEDOM OF CHOICES and RESPECT TO RIGHT TO FREE WILL.

It is not simply a matter of choice, it is by grace, gift or circumstances

ColinAdua:
How many times will I tell you that my stand is. "HE THAT WILL ACCEPT IT, LET HIM ACCEPT IT" In as much as I know and believe that this is a general call, are you blind to all the places I have said that carnal minded men cannot accept this.? eeeeeeh?

It cannot be both an individual gifting and a general call. And marriage is also a gifted state, which is where I disagree with you.

ColinAdua:
I never told you I made this decision out of frustrations with your so call female because it is a very big lie if I say so.

It sounds like it was either driven by frustrations - your stories of woes, disappointments, bad feelings, fears, burdens etc. - or as a result of choosing singleness, you hold women in disdain, seeing them as a potential problem? That is how it sounds.

ColinAdua:
I made this decision in the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, in the quest of what makes me happy.

Which is an unassailable choice. However, I don't see that as necessarily a calling or gift, more a negative driver - fleeing unhappiness - than a positive one, i.e. desire to serve the Lord.

ColinAdua:
Christ and Apostle Paul choose singleness as a character, as an example for us. Which the Roman Catholic priesthood understands well. Even though I don't support them making it compulsory for every priest.

The missions/callings of The Lord and Apostle Paul meant that wives were not a very practical consideration. Other Apostles were married. Paul even mentioned it as a right both he and Barnabas had - it was simply expedient not to be married given their mission/calling.

ColinAdua:
Which bias? That your house is better than your wife is a bias. Who in this world with his right thinking sense didn't know this?

In my singleness, I had little desire for material things, choosing to focus on service/worship. I only got a house when I married - for the wife and kids, not for me.

ColinAdua:
I never told you sexual functions are obsolete. If you can humble yourself, just read and try to remember what I have been saying, you will recall that I said sexual functions are left for carnally minded weak thinking with their P instead of their brain men.

No marriage is a gift, indeed, the burdens it comes with sound like something you shrink away from - "each has his gift from God, one after this manner, another after that". I know that I am uniquely able (gifted) to handle them, really enjoy it,and find pleasure doing so.

ColinAdua:
This is why am giddy. Cos I keep saying the same things over and over again and you people keep asking me the same questions.

Is it that you people lack simple comprehension or reasoning. If you are blinded by your opinion, I think its good if you can just use your brain and recall what another person is saying.

Kai.

You refuse to see to different states, both gifts. And one was actually a creational construct and the whole reason men and women were physically differentiated.

The Lord wants Godly offspring, I'm not sure how you figure that is the perrogative of weak and carnal men? And why God would sanctify a "carnal" union - in the flesh is no good thing, flesh cannot glory in Gods sight.

I will allow that in the fullness of consummation there will be no marriage. In sum, for this current dispensation, singleness is good, but it is a gift, not simply a choice anyone should, and can make. Marriage is also a gift, and to "go forth and multiply", it needs to be the default for most.

A physical take; Population replacement rate is 2.2+ per couple, to multiply, it needs to be even higher. A spiritual take; The first man had to choose marriage (creation), and in the Kingdom of heaven there will be no marriage (consummation). We are somewhere in between .

Best

TV

^{cc Lordreed PoorUgly}

ColinAdua:
I have talked so much about these things that am getting giddy running round circles.

Your giddiness, in all likelihood, has more to do with confusion, because you do not have a well thought-out viewpoint - you are arguing to convince yourself of your own decision and justify your frustration with females

ColinAdua:
Bible has said in so many places that it is better or good to stay single.

The bible does not say it is better to be single for everyone, nor that singleness is better than marriage. Singleness is good for some in some circumstances.

ColinAdua:
Apostle Paul said "imitate me even as I imitate Christ"

What are the attributes they have in common that we should imitate?

This was a reference to godliness and character traits - not physical attributes or valid lifestyle choices. They were both male, they were both itinerant, they both died violent deaths. are you imitating to the letter? Again, you are being prejudicially selectively in order to justify your bias.

ColinAdua:
God is more interested in folks getting saved than reproducing more people here like chickens.

CHRISTIANITY SIMPLY MEANS BEING CHRIST LIKE IN ALL THINGS.

Use your tongue to count your teeth.

I will, and appreciate that for which God gave teeth . Meanwhile, the reproductive capacity and sexual function which were given by the same God are obsolete for everyone due to the fact that you are mothballing yours ?


TV

ColinAdua:
For your information, the only condition given for marriage is for weak carnally minded men lacking simple self-control. 1 Corinthians 7:5,9.(RSV).

That is incorrect. Marriage was a creational construct - as clearly noted at the start of Matthew 19 and the parallel Mark 10. And it prefigures a divine mystery (Christ and His Church/bride ) as Apostle Paul himself says.

ColinAdua:
Evey married man is very WEAK!! People who cannot stand on their own and push the trend.

This - and your earlier statement - sound very much like you attempting to justify your choice and defend it from scripture - neither necessary nor correct. And you choice sounds like it was one made out of frustration. Nowhere does the bible state married men are weak, or marriage is an inferior state.

Not to mention you have made no reference to women - mans purposely created helpmeet - in all of this. Men and women are a differentiated but complimentary pairing. Are single women also superior to married women? Is not childlessness akin to a curse in some respects?

ColinAdua:
Thank God my JESUS CHRIST and Apostle Paul did not marry. These are men that am crazy about and I respect so much.

And we have respect and awe for The Lord and the Apostle Paul also. And for single Christians - be that by calling or resolve, by gifting or grace, but we know the bible does not call such superior or plan for that state to be the default.

ColinAdua:
Apostle Paul summarized it perfectly by saying: "For I would that ALL men were even as I myself". And then went ahead to respect the gift of free will.

That was his wish, not Gods plan in creation or consummation. I also wish that all men were happily married building strong homes and raising healthy families, but I respect the gift of freewill - to not be a Christian, or to not be married.


TV

PoorUgly:
The place is about the UNACCEPTABILITY of DIVORCE, the CONSTANCY OF MARRIAGE which a lot of MARRIAGE CRAZE folks doesn't respect to day with the rampancy of DIVORCE here and there.

I agree with this. My personal position is that there is no divorce for a consummated union. Which is why the disciples felt it "better not to marry" - because there is no out, not because celibacy is superior.

And the point is "divorce" was granted under the law for the hard of heart, not that marriage was instituted at creation to help the incontinent. Mankind were differentiated male and female specifically with the one flesh union in mind.

PoorUgly:
But fortunately, it diverted to EUNUCHISM which is singleness.

So saying its not about singleness is quite wrong cos it about marriage, divorce and finally the supremacy of Singleness.

And I also agree with the first part here.

But it nowhere denotes singleness as supreme, preferred or profitable for the majority. It denotes it as an exception to those to whom it is given

PoorUgly:
You are wrong again by saying that marriage is not meant for the carnal, who were unable to control themselves.
Actually lack of control is the only condition Apostle Paul gave for people to get married.

Look at this Scripture: 1 Corinthians 7:9 "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn".

New King James reads: "But if they cannot exercise self-control let them marry.........'

Read me, and the scriptures correctly; that it is better for those who cannot exercise restraint to marry, does not mean that marriage is designed solely as an outlet for those who lack self-control.

Is mankinds reproductive capacity and the institution of marriage which are both "from the beginning" abolished, or of no import? If Christian males had ceased marrying 2'000 years ago where would we be?

People would be born or become Christians only to remain single? How many would remain? What of the maternal urge for women? It would demand polygamy on any community with large Christian populations. Women would leave and the remaining men would be monks. Wait 0

Majority Christian singleness makes about as much sense as "gay marriage".

Celibacy can be both a grace and/or gift. Grace for those yet to marry and a gift for those who are able to go without. Marriage was part of the plan even before the fall. Mankind were differentiated male and female, with reproductive capacity - godly children being part of Gods plan.

The bible starts with a wedding and Gods eternal plan of salvation is consummated with one. Marriage is "a mystery", prefiguring something divine - thus stated Paul himself.

To reduce marriage to a safety valve for carnal men, and singleness as superior/preferred is to totally misunderstand Gods creation and His redemptive plan

PoorUgly:
And finally, the disciples asking "its not good to marry" is entirely carnal. Cos only the carnally minded who is after his/her fleshy worldly pleasure and comforts, seeks for Divorce.

As above.

And note again, the gift of singleness is something "given". Those so gifted are "exceptions". It is not given to the vast majority, hence marriage is the default and the expectation for most. Nice to hear your viewpoint, but I don't agree, or even see it as sustainable.


TV

5minsmadness:
Aw c'mon, this isnt true. Dont know how i missed it. Of course both spouses knew who they were going to marry and woukd have caught a glimpse of each other at the stream or farm or village square.

And yes, women/daughters had a say. They also had a chance of being refused but this did not happen often. Same with the men. Marriages weren't arranged on childish sentiment but on grounds of best productivity.

Difference between "arranged" and "forced" marriages.

The "arranged" has degrees; from introduction to those considered suitable, to actually shortlisting candidates. But it is always with agreement of the two involved.

England had its "deb" society, which still exists in soft and hard form today. Jewish culture still utilises Shadchans and Shadchanits to ensure good unions. Some cultures and people are simply particular and discerning about who they marry - rightly so too in my opinion.


TV

Kimoni:
You left out your famous quote, "some ladies people who be better off having their fathers parent choose for them".

Until recently pretty much all cultures had some sort of parental involvement in the choice of spouse. I don't think there is any gainsaying that parents - or their proxies - with the best interest of their children at heart will bring experience and a long-term view to their children' considerations.

And, I think this works for all. In fact, I think that input should start way before marriage is even in view - in how children are raised. If they are raised right, they should be consciously or subconsciously able to consider the things their parents would have touched on.

Unless one' parents are actually "bad" (for any number of reasons, and in any number of ways), I can't see how their input would be negative. When it got serious, I presented my wife to family elders, siblings - younger and older - and closest friends. I still made my own decision, but heard any concerns.

Avoid stories that touch, speak to daddy


TV

PoorUgly:
Go to the CONCLUSION!

Which verse concludes JESUS CHRIST's discuss on marriage in this chapter? What did it say?

If you are ignorant kindly and humbly ask so you can be taught.

Actually, maybe you should refer to the beginning. The discussion was not about marriage vs. singlehood, it was about marriage & "divorce"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NKJV

The disciples saying "it is better not to marry", was in response to the seriousness of the bond - with no recourse for divorce - not because marriage was meant for the carnal, who were unable to control themselves.

Please expantiate on a different reading if you have one.

ColinAdua:
@the guy above me.

You omitted Verse 10.

10: "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, IT IS NOT GOOD TO MARRY."

What did Jesus tell them?

Did He tell them "No! You're wrong "?.
Did He tell them "What God has called clean, don't call it unclean".
Did He tell them 'No! God originated marriage'.

He told them, verse 11 "But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given."

Because some weak ass, carnally minded, pleasure and cheap sex seeking, thinking with your P instead of your brain men, cannot accept this saying.

Which saying?
Answer: That "IT IS GOOD NOT TO MARRY"!

TV

Kimoni:
@ subject - who is the wrong person?

Holá Kim,

Assuming one makes or agrees to the choice, there is no wrong person, only a wrong understanding and approach. Once certain needs and expectations are met, RL will set in, and even flourish.

Maybe risky to say for sure at this point - but certainly current - I mentioned "arranged marriages" in my initial post here, but is it noteworthy that even some of the Chibok girls are seemingly content to remain in forced unions ?

Timbuktou, well said jare...should have checked for you first. Crackhaus how far? "Where you been" as TVjnr often says. Come, some of your harem have been acting up like they seriously need your attention. Don't know how you do it dude, but glad you are back .


TV

The notion of “romantic love” as a basis for marriage is a very recent one, a very pervasive one - given its relative newness - and most of all, a very damaging one.

Let’s first distinguish between romantic love, the arbitrary, nigh on undefineable feeling, from the commitment to care for, honour and remain faithful to one’s spouse, which is in a sense a better description of what love truly is.

Nowhere is RL codified in law, religion, or science, or is actually demanded as a requirement for marriage. Indeed, while it may be present in a form at the start, true and deep RL grows out of living the commitment as described.

Many in arranged marriages will testify as to how RL grow over time in marriages where CL was clearly evident and demonstrated.

Indeed, RL as a predicate is actually anti-marriage, evidenced in the first instance by the number of marital failures, and also by the fact that marriage as understood in its essence cannot be articulated or fully realised on the basis of RL, and it’s attempting to do so that leads to futility and failure.

Anti-marriage I said, because marriage is by definition lifelong and demands commitment independent of feelings. And quite often the challenges that marriage can throw up, seriously war against the idyllic setting that RL best thrives in.

Anti-marriage, because one of its main purposes it the nurture of children and RL is centred primarily on the “feelings" of the adults involved, with a primary commitment to that feeling and not their spouse or families.

Anti-marriage, because if RL is a virtue, if it is the predicate for marriage, when the RL vanishes or dissipates, or is surpassed by a stronger RL, divorce then becomes a virtue as well.

I don’t think it gets any more anti-marriage than divorce. Like darkness is the absence of light, divorce is not merely the end of a marriage, it is the evisceration of what marriage is.

Anti-marriage, because it explains how we get from “here to there”, when in fact it seemed unthinkable. If marriage is about the RL – no matter how intense – between two people, then why should 2 people of any sex not be married?

That’s how to those of a recent milieu and mindset, getting there was a no brainer. It’s why the shallow and ignorant slogans like “equallove”, make sense to those that lack understanding but love to give credence to their feelings

RL – or the emphasis on it - is what is overrated, not marriage. RL is what does not live up to expectations. RL which at best is an euphemism for carnal desire – which is why it only takes a perkier body or trying circumstances to scatter it– should not be confused with CL or ever used as the basis for marriage, not in whole, it can be argued, in part.


TV

^{note – I RL’ed my wife when I married her}

ColinAdua:
I couldn't actually get your point or main target though.

Marriage - biblically and socially - is the default. And you are wrong to sell it as simply an "either/or" proposition for all (men). Some as you've noted may be called to singleness for a specific reason. But even that may only be for a time, so you are additionally wrong to make it sound as a decision taken at a point, and then permanently fixed.

I would go further and say Christians should assume marriage, unless they are sure they are called not to (for which they should be sure), or for some reason can't. But I would consider there would be few in this category.

On a personal level you may well have the calling to singleness. Be that because you were born with "no/little" desire, because you have the control to remain single, or, and not very likely, you were made or forced to be that way by men or circumstance Matthew 19-12. That does not mean you present "a calling as a choice" to the wider Christian body.

Your having a "terrible dislike", speaks to something of an issue with you personally. There is no need for antipathy between being married or single, or men and women.

I was also single for a season. Content and willing to keep myself if the right woman did not come along. I can categorically state that marriage is better. But that is still to a degree my subjective opinion, and not something I can present as determinative for the whole body.

And I was joking a little about the house and epping. There are marriageable sisters out there. You just need to be discerning and led, and maybe revisit some notions you hold.

You sound like a good chap, would you like some introductions ?


TV


^{(...joking 0, not saying you haven't made the right choice for you)}

ColinAdua:
AM SO HAPPY MAKING THIS DECISION. ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT BUT BEST DECISION I HAVE MADE!

Marriage maybe good but definitely SINGLEHOOD is better. Haha!

I wouldn't want to gainsay you belief about the decision you made to remain single. Although I have to point out that it is at best subjective. After a long spell single, I made the decision to be married, and I would likewise claim, with absolute sincerity, it was one of my best decisions ever.

I would also say that having tried both states, marriage is infinitely preferable. And, your being single is a state, thus, your claim is only good in the immediacy of that claim. You could well change both your mind and your tune tomorrow?

As for a house being better, I have both, and whilst the house has it's uses, there are somethings Mama does that I'd happily live in a field for .

On a more serious note, I absolutely get that in some ways a studied spirituality and focus on God is much more readily available when single. However, one can have a wife and still pursue that same devotion to a degree, but not vice-versa.

Further, "marriage" is the default for Christians, and most of society still. One need not hear to marry (as opposed to whom to marry), but one should certainly be sure of the calling not to (even to delay it sef!).

Be very sure, and very clear before you preach it as either/or for everyone (man). It is not. Epp these girls na


TV

missjo:
Whatever Mr Man.

The summary of your position is that this man should and MUST NOT have negative feelings regarding his wife's behaviour. He ought to overlook everything she does as written in the article and continue like nothing is wrong. Splendid!

They are both terrible, but I'm not sure which is actually worse, your reading comprehension or your reading of people - both are so poor I'm starting to suspect you're trolling me .

Marriage has a framework. It is not primarily determined by the "feelings" or even "behaviours" of those within it. Spouses have a claim to marital assets regardless. And as I repeatedly stated, her behaviour and his feelings about that behaviour, do not change that.

But lets just overlook the points I repeatedly stressed about addressing said behaviour (as a separate issue) - prior or post marriage - as it suits the caricature you have of me in your head .

Enough. This is getting boring. Please tell me what exactly it is I'm insecure about. I'm struggling . I'm no oil-painting, not rich by even generous measures and have a "standard education" from a non-name institutions.

But, I'm happily married to a stunning woman (all round 0 ). I have cute as button kids, a strong extended family network, a diverse, but select set of good friends. I'm in good health, as fit as a fiddle, have a place to call my own. And not least, have a strong faith to the core of me.

Please troll me some more elucidate your diagnosis of insecure for me - then I'll share my own diagnosis, and prognosis if you like, of you

Set your weave like it's box-fresh and you mean business

Have a lovely weekend


TV

missjo:
It's exactly 1month 18days since I quoted you without getting a response,and your excuse now is that you didnt respond because I don't get marriage, lol.

See like I told that other guy on that thread,you're terribly insecure. Here's how I know:

Missjo, please take it easy, I may be yanking your chain small, but the whole psyche bit is funny, as well as a fail.

I didn't respond the first time as I felt my first answer was clear and I didn't know you to back and forth with. Since you forcefully introduced yourself , I do now.

At first, I thought who is this? But quite respected your speaking up on the Moji thread, even though I yanked a little then. MizMyColi got it way better than you did.

Lighten up, you are taking things way to personally. I have nothing to be insecure about, and neither should you, from me at least.

Oya, re-do your make-up.

Have a great rest of day.


TV
[b]

Lol,you're terrible. A woman wanting her name on the deeds was never the issue,this wouldn't be a problem with couples who are satisfied, content, and wholly committed to each other.

The issue with her insisting on having her name on the deed became a problem to her husband ONLY after he factored in her previous behavior. THEY ARE RELATED because she hasn't given him any reason to trust him.

...and you still don't get it. Whatever her behavior pre or post-marriage, having communal property (or property in common) is a feature of marriage, it's how its meant to work. It does not vary from couple to couple, based on feelings or concerns about behavior.

Even if she is a gold-digger, as his wife, she has every right to declare a marital interest. In fact, it is assumed even without documentation in some jurisdictions. Concerns about her financial mismanagement should have been addressed prior, and can be even now, but that does not obviate her rights...read slowly and less personally Oh, look! https://www.nairaland.com/3322866/wife-doesnt-work-wants-name#48984645
[/b]

Ishilove:
Many times I refrain from dishing out marital advice because hey, I'm not qualified, but it just makes me mad when I see some youngsters commenting on marital issues.

I am also bug-eyed at this . It must be disheartening, especially for one yet married. But don't despair, instead, let it motivate you. You can make your marriage exactly what you choose. The key is preparing yourself and knowing exactly what the kind of husband you desire looks like - when you meet him .

I've been on NL over 10 yers, I refrained from posting in this section until I had my own family and kids, even though I had my opinion on most things. And with hindsight, I'd have given answers before that I would have given after. Being yet to marry or have children, does not mean you lack nous and insight.

As for the revelations. Ah! I try take every persons presentation of themselves and their lives at face value. I'd actually find knowing such things about others burdensome. Although I do wonder about how what some present jars with what they preach?

I aim to let it be more about positions and policy than people. I know that can be hard, especially if you know certain things. but let that engender a degree of wariness, not cynicism.

It is very well.


TV

^{...5minsmadness, spot on!}

kunleajaye:
I want to believe it’s the stress of work, school, and the many thoughts going through our minds that is causing all this, but I don’t want to wake up one day and realize I don’t love my wife anymore. I don't want a situation where all this will split our family apart and suffer the little ones.

To a degree you are right about some of the underlying issues. What you haven't clearly articulated is what you want. Many are advising it's par for the course, to focus on your wife' attributes, appreciate your blessings etc. All that is fine for as far as it goes, but it's only a solution if it matches what you want.

Could be it's called a "sex life" for a reason? It really does have a life of it's own, almost separate, but within the greater union. Like a muscle it can be exercised and grow, or it can be left to atrophy, literally waste away due to lack of use.

Even if you resolve some of those underlying issues, it doesn't mean your sex life will be fully invigorated. Listen, if a puny, concave-chested, scrawny man won the lottery, he wouldn't become a lean, beautifully muscled - a me that is - man as soon as he cashed the cheque.

I won't say anymore for now. After all, you may have found what you seek here already. But if it's something more - I note the "beautiful girl" you remember from early on, and I would imagine lots of passion - go to the boys night out thread, do some reading and mention me there.
https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/174#48656780

I am not claiming to have the lottery winning formula

All the best whatever you choose to do.


TV

missjo:
Did you read the article Sir?
Her careless spending habits and not contributing to the mortgage and tax especially as it is now community property AKA their home,and then her subsequent insistence on having her name on documents, is what infuriates the man as it should.

I barely remember this thread and I certainly don't remember you! Anyway, now that we are better aquainted, I'll unignore you . I just felt you didn't get marriage. I'll explain by way of example;

If the couple had kids together, they'd be joint parents, father and mother. If the man didn't lift a finger to help (despite being able to do so, and his wife needing him to), it wouldn't mean that she should be designated sole parent. The issue is not parenthood, it's his parenting skills/invovement. Clear? No

Ok. lets say they rented and didn't own, would there be a problem still? Yes, she's financially scatty. She has a problem and they have an issue (or vice-versa if you prefer). Her financial impropriety needs to be be addressed.

So, her wanting to be named on the deeds is standard marriage protocol, nothing to do with her poor financial management/contribution. That is a separate issue entirely, although they may appear related to one who doesn't get it .

You are still doing girlfriend/boyfriendage abi? Get back to me when you grow up

Have a lovely evening


TV

tearoses:
Maybe this is the wrong place and the wrong topic but just want to encourage someone

Atall!

Side hustle (with potential to morph into Billion $ bidness ) is one of our recurring themes here.
When my wife took up baking, I was like "this is not what we discussed". And finding those fiddly little decorative things in the aisles at Sainsburys was a right pain . And we always seemed to be blessing people with cakes at social functions. But she enjoyed it, so I held my peace.

Lo and behold, orders have started rolling in. Not sure where she'd like to go with it, but I shall show her your post and tell her to put India on our bucket list .

Working on my own testimony


TV

naijababe:
Abeg o, I need some guidance here. Like I said my original preference was the planner route and frankly it seems like once I can get myself to pass the level 4 exams I will be ok using the CISI pathway. If I can get the CFA, so be it, if not I don't think I will be too upset. I think they scrapped the IMC and replaced it with something else since their merger with CISI. My only concern is that the CFA website below is still active

https://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/comparison/Pages/index.aspx

How far? I think we need a few distinctions. It depends on the area you are currently in, the one you would like to move to, and at what level.

Wealth Management is a sub-set of Asset Management, but targeted at High Net Worth (HNW) individuals. I get a sense that the difference in the qualifications is between advising HNW clients on financial products, and actually having expertise about the products.

At the top end I don't think the CISI will be considered equivalent to the CFA. Lower down where you are advising ordinary Joes like yours truly, it's more about being an IFA (independent Financial Advisor), which is about the basics really like Mortgages, Investments (as simple as ISAs), Pensions and the like.

I don't think you can segue from the CISI to the CFA either.

Is that clearer, helping?


TV

UPMIKE:
Please I want the matured minds in this forum to educate and advice me on what to do.
THANKS IN ADVANCE

*Checks the NL Family section playbook*

Types of lie - Serious, Minor, Inconsequential
Discovery mode - Voluntary confession, 3rd party revelation, due diligence/screening
Gravity - Heavy, Medium, Light
Potential Impact - Family, Friends, Wider Society, income, children, future plans
Possibility to remediate - Many, few, none

OP plot this problem and it should fall into one of four quadrants:
1. Deal breaker
2. Suspend relationship
3. Proceed with caution
4. Carry go, nothing do you.

Example. You plan to marry someone 10 years younger. Potential spouse knocks 7 years of her age . You discover by investigation.

It's a serious lie, which was not voluntary confessed, it's of heavy gravity, as she would have carried it for life, no real impact on friends or family "if they don't know", but some if they do. May affect sex/procreation. It cannot be remediated => Deal breaker.

Hope this helps


TV

naijababe:
What pathway did you follow? There are different routes from what I have garnered so far, I am keen on financial planning but I just may swing the way of Wealth management. The exams look intimidating already . Did you obtain your chartership from CISI too?

http://www.cisi.org/cisiweb2/cisi-website/study-with-us/wealth-retail

CFA charter status is now the preferred post-degree qualification for the Asset Management Industry. It's pretty much expected that Fund Managers, Investment Strategist, Client Directors/Relationship managers, and even the senior operational bods, will acquire it.

It's not an easy pass. It typically takes 3 years at best. Some schools have their students start or complete it as part of their courses nowadays. It must be easier. Lots of people take it juggling F/T jobs and families, which can stretch it out a bit and really task you.

Sometimes, if your face doesn't fit even with the CFA, notin' go drop. I stopped at the basic IMC which was need to be a manager. I never had the appetite for the CFA. It's why I explored Coaching and other avenues, which would also give me options outwith the industry.

All the best. Hope you hit the jackpot with the one you are taking.


TV

tearoses:
I serve & follow one God, not nairaland gods, so I will continue to speak my mind on the things that dont sit comfortably with me, whether I am in the minority or preaching a sermon or not.

...can one do anything else. I appreciate it can be hard to go against the grain. Kudos.

tearoses:
Im answer to your other q. Ive been called so many names like Mummy P etc
But I noticed one thing. The more I protest the more they say it
So ive left them be jare
To my family members & my adopted sons and daughters and brothers and sisters I am Big sis
I like that one better
Omo Timbuktou jaku jaku yen lo man pe mi ni grandma

Tim get liver pass for this forum

Timbuktou:
TV01, how does Mother-in-Zion sound for Grandma Tearoses?. I think it would fit perfectly.

Actually, now you mention it, I'm sure she once bagged the honorarium "Iya l'ode".

But I think I'll follow her lead and go with Sis


TV

I used to think I loved children. And when I say "think", I don't mean solely in my head, or a warm fuzzy feeling. I used to live it. One of the things I used to give myself to before marriage and children - which for a time I thought may not happen for me - was being around children, spending time with them and taking them out.

How many park trips, cinema outings and theatre shows did did I attend. I had the whole of Lion King down pat, and spent so much time at the stage door so the children could meet the actors as they left. A real highlight. Especially for black kids, as the cast are mostly black. I even used my affection in sermons, and the audience laughed with me, or so I thought at the time?

Then I had my own children. Rethink! I'm sure they'll be exceptions, but people typically love their own kids with a different degree and much fiercer love. I still remember the great times with a lot of those kids, and even stay in touch with some of them,

All my siblings have children and a love them all, but not like my kids. I couldn't imagine sucking their snot, even if I'd be happy to change the odd diaper. They get hugs and kisses and loads of affection, but I don't want to constantly nuzzle them like I do my daughter, or just randomly pick them up and tell them how much I love them. Or inconveniently interrupt them just to give or receive some tenderness.

I think the old trope of you must love any step-children like your own flesh and blood is misplaced, even unrealistic. Does it even make sense? The expectation should be to treat them as much as possible in the same way as you would do your own and even that has limits.

The intact biological family - father, mother, children - is still far and away the best. No gainsaying. It moots so many of the issues presented by any other type.

There are reason why society has developed a reflex response to single - mostly mother - parenthood. There are reasons why discerning men are wary. It probably works better for the wealthy, as one of the big potential issues - finances - will be less significant.

The social dynamics and differing preferences/requirements of the sexes mean single fathers still have greater leeway - It's why they can still desire virgins Uju .

But seriously, there is nothing stopping a single mother demanding a never-married, childless man for a spouse is there? The choice and/or expectations are largely forced by the realistic probabilities. Truth. Some may have great, non-typical outcomes, but not a majority, not even many.

And someone said single-motherhood isn't bad? ATBE is it good? What advantages does it bring? Who grows up planning to be or marry a single parent?


TV

14sixty:
thank you for taking your time, will be expecting the completion of your reply sir.

Situation - Condolences for the loss of your mother and sister. Somethings have a lasting impact, even if we nominally get over them. You have been through too much, too early. You sound very well educated and/or of good background. Well spoken for someone who left school at 16?

I'm not sure how it was "impossible" to live with your father and step-mum? I can't quite work out when step mum arrived (was she a 2nd wife, or a later wife?), when you suffered the terrible loss of your mother and sister, and when you decided to strike out on your own?

Either way, you must have been treated horrendously, and/or been very rebellious? Have you really no contact with your father and extended family on both the paternal and maternal sides? Does no one care or look for you? Is there no interest in their daughter & grandchild?

It's also hard to believe a family allowed their 22 year old son move a 16 year old girl into their home? What were the long-term plans for both of you individually and as a couple? What on earth did his family think this would led to long-term? It's hard making sense of all of this.

Anyway, the very first thing I think you should consider is re-establishing contact with your family, especially your father, but as widely as possible. They are really the only people with, in a sense, ties, rights and obligations to fight on your behalf.

Ultimately you want them to appreciate your plight and be ready to stand for you. The authorities are a consideration, however, I don't know that the framework is in place, and properly functioning in Naija? for you to seek help from them. Perhaps others may know better

I think you both need to "look up" and consider the future, most importantly for your child. The seeming bleakness of your situation may be one of the things that's making you building up resentment against him. You seem to be "thinking ahead, his doing so may change his disposition.

Funnily enough, same may be happening on his side and it could eventually lead to a bitter split anyway. Then where would you be? Hence refer to my first point and do all you can to be reconciled with your family.

If you have truly made up your mind already, or ultimately decide to leave, in lieu of vows, there is nothing stopping you. But you have to think it through very carefully, from where you will go, to how you will support yourself, how you will resist efforts to force you back, whilst at the same time not denying the baby's father access. What could happen if the authorities became involved - especially if you are still vulnerable?

You mentioned other things like porn, possibly drugs, concomitant abuse, both physical and sexual in nature. You really need to be in a healthier place for your long-term well-being. Despite your best efforts, I can't see how this is healthy for baby either.

Please keep praying and looking to God for comfort in all of this. Your situation almost sounds Chibok-like, but He is faithful. Continue to keep your child at the forefront of your mind, it will motivate and inspire you. Try not to aggravate the situation in any way.


TV