• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

God's ideal...

S

Shadowjak's Dancer

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
I love the various forms of the 'it isn't God's ideal' argument. Heres a thought (and please forgive me if I posted this before, because I can never remember all the various conversations I have on the topic):

Does something not being 'God's ideal' really equate it being a bad thing? After all, we never should have sinned. Therefore, ideally, Messiah should never have had to show His love by laying His life down as He did.

There are many redemptive works of God that in ideal circumstances should never be necessary, but since we all live in this world where they are necessary, we can all thank God He provides the mechanisms to deal with the many situations we will face everyday that are not 'ideal'. This gives us the flexibility to also deal with the 'real'.
 
Ok true, but the obvious response to that from "the church" would be "God turns evil to good, but that doesn't mean to do evil", which at it's base form is a true statement. They'll also use that argument when you point out all of the poly patriarchs in the Bible that were very important to God's work, and when you point out that Jesus came from a line that did not originate with David's first wife.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ah, but I would respond that God gives us appropriate measures to deal with less-than-ideal situations. Levirate marriage is a perfect example of how polygyny can remedy the situation a young widow can find herself in. There are others, but the key is that the institution can be seen as a response to the less-than-ideal, so like the many other ways God redeems the problem situations in society, this institution is a similar mechanism, and not a the 'problem' that God has to fix with other deliverances.
 
You are arguing within their frame. Bad move. Understand Provers 26:4-5

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him.

Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.

That illustrates the power of frame. If you try to argue within a fool's frame then you become a fool. The way to answer a fool and his foolish arguments is to answer from the correct frame that demonstrates their foolishness.

The frame of the "God's Best" argument is that the collective opinion carries the authority to determine what God's Best is for someone. Keep in mind that in this case, the terms "God's Best" or "God's Ideal" is just another way of saying "Our idea of what God's will should be for your life." A husband has that authority for his wife and a father does for his children, but neither the congregation nor any single individual within it have the authority or right to tell a man or woman who, when or how they may or should marry if they are eligible to marry. My usual response to such arguments is this:

"Don't you think it's God's Best that when a person believes they know what God's Best is for other people... that it's a sign they should return to their village?"

And they almost always ask why...

"QED. It's obviously God's Best that every village has an idiot and having achieved the qualification, here you are far from home, depriving your village of what's rightfully theirs."

Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.
 
I think most Christians want to put everything into two boxes - "ideal, perfect & righteous" or "sin".
So every single thing that they like they put into the "perfect" box, and everything they don't like they find a way to shoehorn into the "sin" box, clutching at whatever proof-text they can to do so.
And they expect everyone to behave perfectly.

It's far better to recognise that there are at least four boxes - "ideal", "good neutral", "bad neutral" and "sin".
Most stuff is in the neutral category. Should you brush your teeth once or twice a day? Should you live in the city or the country? Should you buy a blue car or a red car? - really, most decisions don't matter. Most stuff is in the "neutral" category. Some decisions are good, some bad, for obvious reasons (brushing your teeth is "good neutral", never brushing would be "bad neutral").
Unless you have a specific instruction from YHWH that puts one decision in the "perfect" box (ie a clear "do this"), in which case that decision is no longer neutral.
Or unless there's a clear instruction from Him that something is in the "sin" box, ie a prohibition in scripture.
So the "ideal" and "sin" boxes are really quite small.
Most of our life is lived in the "good neutral" and "bad neutral" boxes - where we make better or worse decisions that might affect our lives today but have no eternal significance.
Not "ideal" means it's neutral and ok.

Breaking things up this way means we can keep the "sin" box trimmed back to only what is truly prohibited. And we can argue that other things may be "bad" without having to then label them "sin" and try to find a biblical justification for this - most bad ideas are bad simply because they have negative consequences today, not because they're sinful.

Even if something is not ideal, it's certainly not sin.
 
What is ideal for the single woman?
A non-existent perfect unmarried man?
 
steve said:
What is ideal for the single woman?
A non-existent perfect unmarried man?
Click to expand...

Steve, they are *sure* they know what they want and they have a list with 324 bullet points that have to be checked off so they *know* that man is God's Best™ for her. This is most prevalent when they are in their twenties because they have been convinced that somewhere out there is THE ONE that God has in mind for them.

They have been taught that THE ONE is out there. It is a pernicious folly.
 
I agree that the way to deal with this argument is to question the premise that monogamy is somehow “God’s Ideal”. But I don’t think I agree that the way to deal with an opponent is to implying they are a fool.

Consider that (usually) we are not trying to convince the person we are debating. In my experience, they have their minds made up so firmly that nothing we say has any chance of changing their opinion.

Our real audience is the bystanders to the debate, those who have not fully made up their minds. These we have a chance to influence positively, but only if we respond in a way that will not make them reject our cause simply because we treated our opponent badly.

Thus I try to treat my opponent with as much respect, humility, and gentleness as I can muster up. I do this even if (or especially if) my opponent is a troll or zealot, because in doing so I can present my side as the more reasonable alternative to whatever the troll is saying. And I do this even if there isn’t an audience, because I can always use more practice treating others better.
 
steve said:
What is ideal for the single woman?
A non-existent perfect unmarried man?
Click to expand...
I think this bears well with the thrust of what I originally meant.

We live in a world of competing needs. While it was not ideal that we sinned, a world of sinners would benefit from a Savior.

Ideally, a woman has the right to choose when to have children. A child also has the right not to be killed. What happens when these rights clash head-on? One takes precedence over the other. The woman, up till that point, can freely choose abstinence, condoms, etc., to exercise her will. However, when a child is conceived, a new person's rights also come into the equation and cannot be trampled for convenience sake. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness sensibly placed life first as the other two must, by necessity, presuppose it.

So, yes, what about a widow's right to have a husband? An Orphan's right to not be fatherless?

Is it ideal that they should be left with no leader in this life to model the headship of the Father? Does God's ideal demand we leave people in that state when He Himself takes us all by adoption that we should call Him Father?

Does the 1st wife's interest in having her husband all to herself outweigh a 2nd woman's interest in having a good husband at all? In terms of weight of importance, the answer must clearly be a resounding "no".

I can agree that it isn't ideal that there are quite a lot of useless, ungodly men out there. However, as we do, in fact, live in such a world, is it ideal that we simply abandon women to their fate?
 
Jeff Ray said:
Our real audience is the bystanders to the debate, those who have not fully made up their minds. These we have a chance to influence positively, but only if we respond in a way that will not make them reject our cause simply because we treated our opponent badly.

Thus I try to treat my opponent with as much respect, humility, and gentleness as I can muster up. I do this even if (or especially if) my opponent is a troll or zealot, because in doing so I can present my side as the more reasonable alternative to whatever the troll is saying. And I do this even if there isn’t an audience, because I can always use more practice treating others better.
Click to expand...

Good policy, and a good point.

On topic I love how @FollowingHim broke down how many issues and choices fall in neutral categories.
We are often not able to do anything for the single women without a man, because many if not most will not consider poly as a viable option, moral or not.
With many people who are married choosing to divorce it is really extraordinary when a poly family happens, and maintains enough charity with each other to stay together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top