Thursday, November 19, 2009

Marital Rape?- cont'd

It is good for a man not to touch a woman- 1 Cor. 7:1

No, that is only half of the verse.  The ascetics of Paul's time were asking him if this were the case.
Paul is quoting their letter to him and goes on to refute their asceticism.  Refuting that sex was 'only intended for procreation'.
Seems their asceticism was rampant.  And remained rampant till the Reformation.  Till Rome was refuted.
When tradition was spurned.  And Scripture (like Hebrews 13:4) more regarded as Sola

Note the direct quotation marks of this verse in the ESV.  And the direct quotation marks in the above NET link.  The NIV is likely to follow those standards of punctuation as well- in the upcoming edition.

Note the punctuation of that verse here-

Note the indentation of the letter being quoted.  And the outdentation returning to Paul's response to that quote (verse 2).

But what does this have to do with marital rape?
Seems feminists also think- that it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Not unless they want to be touched.  Which is far less than men would like to touch their wives.

Again, the umbrage of  our allegedly enlightened society appears not to be at the allow-ability of touching your wife.  Obviously you are allowed to do it--- once.  The umbrage with the proposed Karzai law- was the allow-ability to touch your wife "once every four days".  Far too often for feminists.  And far too often for married women actually desiring autonomy more than desiring their husband.

Now, would these same feminists have taken the same umbrage if President Karzai had proposed once/month?  When the woman has elevated libido and fertility?

Such a proposal might be met by these Muslim men by choosing the wrong time of the month.  Or choosing another wife or more.

Yet these Afghan women knew what was in their best interests. Their husbands best interests.  And their societies best interests.
And our alleged feminist enlightenment- is a blinding black-light.  Heading for a black hole.

Yet what frequency-of-touch does our Christian law mandate?

A sacrificial frequency.
A frequency that is in the wife's best interest. And a frequency that is in the husbands best interest.

The husband is obligated to love and honor  his wife with respect to procreation.  And the wife to love and respect her husband with respect to recreation.

"Not fair!" the feminists cry,  "He only has to honor her with sex once or twice".
"Incredibly fair!" Your Honor replies to deadbeat dads, "You still gotta honor the child support payments more than once or twice".

But how often should he or she compel each other for recreation?
The Apostle Paul says, 'For morality purposes- as often as they are compelled'.  Or more accurately, as often as they "burn with sexual desire"-1 Cor. 7:2-9.
Jesus suggests, 'For morality purposes- as often as they have more desire than a eunuch'- Matt. 19:9-12.

Seems to me that this means- that a man should touch a woman frequently.  And if Mohammad is any indication- should touch a woman much more frequently than the Karzai law permits. 

Indeed, suggests the word of the Lord, "Let her breasts satisfy you at all times"- Proverbs 5:19.  Not just when she is fertile.  And not just once every four days.

May you "be exhilarated always with her love" (same verse).  And exhilarated always with the love of God.
Who will comfort you exceedingly more- Isaiah 66:10-13.  And comfort the eunuchs as well- Isaiah 56:3-5.