I am, again, SO grateful for this podcast and the people who are peeling back the layers of this particular onion. My fist marriage to a "Christian" was wrought with abuse. I continued, year after year, to give that husband everything I had. Aside from all the other abuses, the sexual abuse was excruciating to me; mind, body and soul. I was used, I was commanded to give him everything he wanted, no matter how debased it made me feel or how disgusting it was. I was NEVER explored, I was never brought to orgasm, and when I DID speak up in the beginning about the things I thought I'd like, he told me he'd *never* have sex that way~ oh, and that I was vanilla & *boring.* what a way to rev up MY engine to feel turned on and safe with him!!! 😵💫🤯 The things you guys are teaching has blown the door WIDE open on my now husband and I's sex life!!! I cannot put into words how amazing intimacy is for us!! The exact _opposite_ of what I experienced with my ex!! My husband sees to me first, he _loves_ foreplay...and the longer it lasts, the more AMAZING the finale!!! For BOTH of us!! I am so grateful!! And I'm heartbroken for all the husbands and wives who are t experiencing this amazing depth of intimacy😢 You're all doing amazing work~ keep it up!!!
Most of those relying on 'the scripture clearly shows' are using tradition as much as, or frankly more than the text. , ie the way someone told them to think about the Bible is treated as the only vieweven if the text says differently
Ok, I'm 9 minutes in and my brain is screaming. How the gospel message of "The Creator of the universe loves you" got turned into "obligation sex is part of the gospel" is just... Revolting. Apply this way of thinking to all the bad doctrines. The gospel is simple, these doctrines are horrible, harmful, and painful.
Notice it also shoves the woman (the “Bride”) into performing the role of “Christ” … in presumably Christian marriages? The bride needs to sacrifice but the “head” does not. It’s literally an inversion of the Gospel. If Jesus treated this man the way he insists men should be able to treat their wives? He’d be in a world of hurt.
Yes! My husband and I were just talking about how fundamentalists and progressives are very similar: My way or the highway. They wouldn’t want to admit they have a lot in common though!
It's so funny that Rebecca brings up "Business Time" because I've been singing that song to myself while reading the articles about bad evangelical sex.
I understand the lesson of Plato's Cave, but I think it also illustrates the key problem with Greek philosophy, namely that it privileged abstract thought and ideal forms over real experience and exploration. When we read about Christ using the foolish to shame the wise, we must remember that the "wisdom" of that time was largely the product of sitting around and thinking about the world rather than going into the world to test ideas, as is done in modern science. Also, I would like to point out that the Galileo controversy was a _lot_ more complex than what Keith described. Galileo wasn't just challenging the Church, he was challenging Classical philosophers who had been respected and largely unquestioned for centuries, as well as other well-respected astronomers of the day. Galileo's real blunder, though, was writing his book, _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,_ in which the simple-minded Simplicio used arguments in favor of the Ptolemaic system that were basically identical to arguments previously made by the pope; this was interpreted as Galileo calling the pope a simpleton. All of this happened just a few generations after the Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Church was understandably suspicious of anyone who was critical of the pope.
In mediaeval Europe science happened within monasteries etc as they were set aside from subsistence farming etc. And fed by a theology about learning about the world = learning more of God. It is only post enlightenment and especially post Darwin that literalism took hold and cast science as evil and anti faith. (Islam has had some similar arcs, in the European 'Dark Ages' major science esp maths progresses through Muslim scholars, Algebra is named after one of them)
Wait wait wait ... So, women have to give up everything (sacrifice) for bad sex because the gospel... Ok. But then women are to be sure they are aroused by themselves... So, what part of the gospel is that? Is that my good deeds? Is that following all the rules so I'm good enough? Hmm
The persecution narrative acts as a thought stopping concept. It casrs anyone with different views as the enemy and it promotes the importance of caring the party line. People in this situation are led to fear anything else, and yes when they encounter other ideas this set up demands that they choose one or the other with bi room for the two different insights revealing something more about God.
Notice this director’s rhetoric also shoves the woman (the “Bride”) into performing the role of “Christ” … in presumably Christian marriages? The bride needs to sacrifice but the “head” does not. It’s literally an inversion of the Gospel. If Jesus treated this man the way he insists men should be able to treat their wives? He’d be in a world of hurt. Also … I have some familiarity with er0t*c poetry contemporary to Solomon … there were some common metaphors used in Mesopotamian, Indus Valley, and North African cultures. Suffice it to say… the Lover and Beloved are doing a lot more than int*rcourse. As for his take on Genesis … don’t do eisigesis, kids! Just say no! 😏
Were the couple in Song of Songs married? I think there is one reference to bride but in my experience is that bride is only used pre marriage, eg betrothal. So if that is only in text evidence that the couple are married....
There are six uses of the word "bride" (kallâ) in reference to the beloved, so I think it's safe to assume that they are married, or at least betrothed.
It seems that science is proving what Genesis 1 and 2 taught about man and woman before sin came into the world. I call it image bearer theology. Unbiblical teaching on men primarily being visual developed out of what happened to men and women after the fall. Christ came to restore us to what he created.
This is kinda confusing. I don’t have evidence of Jesus and the gospel. But I believe it by faith. Long ago there wasn’t the tools to prove many scientific things that can be now. I believe Jesus is the only way. I accepted it by faith. I didn’t go to the scientific community for answers. The HolySpirit convicted me and I believed. I don’t believe I have to see the other side or other opinions to know this. Any thoughts for clarification?
I’m always surprised when Christians think that dinosaurs didn’t walk with men and were extinct for millions of years just because a scientist said so. Like it’s this hard fact because of a theory. There is a reason evolution is theory and not hard fact, no one knows for sure. No one knows for an absolute fact when the dinosaurs went extinct because none of us alive today were there. I always think of it as one of those things we will never know for certain about until we go to heaven.
Yeah and while I agree with them on the topic of relationships, I don't with evolution. But with Kent hovind, I don't agree with how he views marriage. It's not his area of expertise and study....which that actually does align with what they've been saying. (About people being experts in certain fields and not just pastors with opinions) Kent is on UA-cam, though you really have to search! And his intellectual approach to the creation/evolution and dinosaurs, is far more convincing than ken ham. And unlike ken, he's not running a large and expensive theme park.(not wrong, but worth pointing out!) Ultimately life is complicated and everyone should learn to study for themselves and then test it by seeking out opposite views.
You're confusing the words hypothesis and theory. In science, a theory is not a supposition or proposition (ie a guess). That's a hypothesis. A theory in science is a "carefully thought out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses."
I am, again, SO grateful for this podcast and the people who are peeling back the layers of this particular onion.
My fist marriage to a "Christian" was wrought with abuse. I continued, year after year, to give that husband everything I had. Aside from all the other abuses, the sexual abuse was excruciating to me; mind, body and soul.
I was used, I was commanded to give him everything he wanted, no matter how debased it made me feel or how disgusting it was. I was NEVER explored, I was never brought to orgasm, and when I DID speak up in the beginning about the things I thought I'd like, he told me he'd *never* have sex that way~ oh, and that I was vanilla & *boring.* what a way to rev up MY engine to feel turned on and safe with him!!! 😵💫🤯
The things you guys are teaching has blown the door WIDE open on my now husband and I's sex life!!! I cannot put into words how amazing intimacy is for us!! The exact _opposite_ of what I experienced with my ex!!
My husband sees to me first, he _loves_ foreplay...and the longer it lasts, the more AMAZING the finale!!! For BOTH of us!!
I am so grateful!! And I'm heartbroken for all the husbands and wives who are t experiencing this amazing depth of intimacy😢
You're all doing amazing work~ keep it up!!!
Most of those relying on 'the scripture clearly shows' are using tradition as much as, or frankly more than the text. , ie the way someone told them to think about the Bible is treated as the only vieweven if the text says differently
Ok, I'm 9 minutes in and my brain is screaming. How the gospel message of "The Creator of the universe loves you" got turned into "obligation sex is part of the gospel" is just... Revolting. Apply this way of thinking to all the bad doctrines. The gospel is simple, these doctrines are horrible, harmful, and painful.
Notice it also shoves the woman (the “Bride”) into performing the role of “Christ” … in presumably Christian marriages? The bride needs to sacrifice but the “head” does not. It’s literally an inversion of the Gospel. If Jesus treated this man the way he insists men should be able to treat their wives? He’d be in a world of hurt.
I love the smile on Keith's face as his daughter reads this allegory. He is such a proud father in the best sense of the word!
The things women are being taught are disgusting. So grateful for all of you!
Yes! My husband and I were just talking about how fundamentalists and progressives are very similar: My way or the highway. They wouldn’t want to admit they have a lot in common though!
It's so funny that Rebecca brings up "Business Time" because I've been singing that song to myself while reading the articles about bad evangelical sex.
Lol I drive my husband crazy by randomly listening to that song! And I shared it with some of my family. It's just hilarious!
@@sackettfamily4685 My husband sings it with me. Our challenge is remembering not to sing it in front of our kids.
I understand the lesson of Plato's Cave, but I think it also illustrates the key problem with Greek philosophy, namely that it privileged abstract thought and ideal forms over real experience and exploration. When we read about Christ using the foolish to shame the wise, we must remember that the "wisdom" of that time was largely the product of sitting around and thinking about the world rather than going into the world to test ideas, as is done in modern science.
Also, I would like to point out that the Galileo controversy was a _lot_ more complex than what Keith described. Galileo wasn't just challenging the Church, he was challenging Classical philosophers who had been respected and largely unquestioned for centuries, as well as other well-respected astronomers of the day. Galileo's real blunder, though, was writing his book, _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,_ in which the simple-minded Simplicio used arguments in favor of the Ptolemaic system that were basically identical to arguments previously made by the pope; this was interpreted as Galileo calling the pope a simpleton. All of this happened just a few generations after the Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Church was understandably suspicious of anyone who was critical of the pope.
In mediaeval Europe science happened within monasteries etc as they were set aside from subsistence farming etc. And fed by a theology about learning about the world = learning more of God. It is only post enlightenment and especially post Darwin that literalism took hold and cast science as evil and anti faith. (Islam has had some similar arcs, in the European 'Dark Ages' major science esp maths progresses through Muslim scholars, Algebra is named after one of them)
Time to burst the bubble!
Wait wait wait ... So, women have to give up everything (sacrifice) for bad sex because the gospel... Ok. But then women are to be sure they are aroused by themselves... So, what part of the gospel is that? Is that my good deeds? Is that following all the rules so I'm good enough? Hmm
Make it make sense!
The persecution narrative acts as a thought stopping concept. It casrs anyone with different views as the enemy and it promotes the importance of caring the party line. People in this situation are led to fear anything else, and yes when they encounter other ideas this set up demands that they choose one or the other with bi room for the two different insights revealing something more about God.
Notice this director’s rhetoric also shoves the woman (the “Bride”) into performing the role of “Christ” … in presumably Christian marriages? The bride needs to sacrifice but the “head” does not. It’s literally an inversion of the Gospel. If Jesus treated this man the way he insists men should be able to treat their wives? He’d be in a world of hurt.
Also … I have some familiarity with er0t*c poetry contemporary to Solomon … there were some common metaphors used in Mesopotamian, Indus Valley, and North African cultures. Suffice it to say… the Lover and Beloved are doing a lot more than int*rcourse.
As for his take on Genesis … don’t do eisigesis, kids! Just say no! 😏
Loved this podcast so much!! ❤
These are the same men who are giving up their “right“ to watch porn? I can guarantee not. This is insanity to me?!
Were the couple in Song of Songs married? I think there is one reference to bride but in my experience is that bride is only used pre marriage, eg betrothal. So if that is only in text evidence that the couple are married....
There are six uses of the word "bride" (kallâ) in reference to the beloved, so I think it's safe to assume that they are married, or at least betrothed.
It seems that science is proving what Genesis 1 and 2 taught about man and woman before sin came into the world. I call it image bearer theology. Unbiblical teaching on men primarily being visual developed out of what happened to men and women after the fall. Christ came to restore us to what he created.
This is kinda confusing. I don’t have evidence of Jesus and the gospel. But I believe it by faith. Long ago there wasn’t the tools to prove many scientific things that can be now. I believe Jesus is the only way. I accepted it by faith. I didn’t go to the scientific community for answers. The HolySpirit convicted me and I believed. I don’t believe I have to see the other side or other opinions to know this. Any thoughts for clarification?
I’m always surprised when Christians think that dinosaurs didn’t walk with men and were extinct for millions of years just because a scientist said so. Like it’s this hard fact because of a theory. There is a reason evolution is theory and not hard fact, no one knows for sure. No one knows for an absolute fact when the dinosaurs went extinct because none of us alive today were there. I always think of it as one of those things we will never know for certain about until we go to heaven.
Yeah and while I agree with them on the topic of relationships, I don't with evolution. But with Kent hovind, I don't agree with how he views marriage. It's not his area of expertise and study....which that actually does align with what they've been saying. (About people being experts in certain fields and not just pastors with opinions)
Kent is on UA-cam, though you really have to search! And his intellectual approach to the creation/evolution and dinosaurs, is far more convincing than ken ham. And unlike ken, he's not running a large and expensive theme park.(not wrong, but worth pointing out!)
Ultimately life is complicated and everyone should learn to study for themselves and then test it by seeking out opposite views.
You're confusing the words hypothesis and theory.
In science, a theory is not a supposition or proposition (ie a guess). That's a hypothesis.
A theory in science is a "carefully thought out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses."