BUT SERIOUSLY: Men, Women & Love

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Now the reactions to this passage usually revolve around revulsion, incredulity, disgust, fear, and if you're a man, happiness - with convenient misinterpretation. But like many scriptures it is widely misunderstood. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but my intutition tells me that the Bible is not just a book of rules or commands, but an insightful text that points out facts about human and Divine nature and how both those things 'work'.

In my opinion, this passage is telling us about the most basic but profound needs of men and women in the love relationship. The person with the most power (and responsibility) over you on earth is the one with whom you are in love. They have the potential to hurt and/or inspire you more deeply than any other person.

Now each Biblical role is seriously challenging, submission for women and total self-sacrifice for men. But something tells me that a woman would have little trouble entrusting herself (and that is what I believe submission to be) to a man she felt completely loved by and who would die for her. Likewise, I can't imagine any reasonable man would hesitate to lay down his life for a woman he felt genuinely respected him and demonstrated loyalty and devotion.

It is my belief that the last sentence of the excerpt is the core statrement: men above all else desire respect, and women above all else desire love and affection. Both are experessions of love, but each incarnation is an articulation in accordance with the way the respective genders consume love.

Women look for a man they can respect, who knows how and when to 'put his foot down' with anyone - including her, but is also considerate and gentle though firm and strong in character. A man loves a strong and outspoken woman who wants to uplift rather than compete against him - who will 'be on his side' and truly believe in him.

We are in the realm of the ideal right now - so clearly this passage is proposing the goal and aspiration. Men may balk at the idea that such a woman exists and women laugh at the possibility of such a prince. But as much as we sometimes fall - sometimes we are this ideal. The idea would be to become this ideal more of the time than not - and that will take not just time but intent, effort, practice and yes - Divine intervention. The built in failsafe is that each role is meant to compensate for the reality of human frailty.

If you give thought to some of the central conflicts of the man/woman relationship they revolve around issues of love and respect - usually surfacing through communication. It would take a profound sense of security and self-confidence to fulfil either of these roles. A sense of security and strength that would not find its genesis in the relationship itself but, I believe, from the Divine and from within the individual. A relationship that demonstrates fluency in the stated direction is one where each individual is bringing that peace, security, confidence, strength and Divine connection to the table. And one can only get what one pursues.

Issues of authority and leadership also arise and make this passage ever more controversial. But ask yourself if fighting for 'control' ever made you happy. Then ask yourself is having complete control ever made your partner happy. For both men and women the issue is not control - it's surrender.

The roles outlined by the scripture, in my opinion, relate to the natural needs of the parties rather than enforcing some unnatural order. One can assume the roles imply silence and non-participation for the woman and complete control and lordship for the man - but that would be a mistake. However, if that's what one wants it may be what one gets. Either way, for any relationship to work there must be an agreed order of some kind with which both parties are happy. No order, no plan, no agreement will lead to more conflict - disorder always does. Leadership doesn't imply superiority but responsibility and servanthood and any sensible leader will recognize the strengths (and weaknesses) of those in his care. Indeed the kind of leadership that scripture advocates subordinates the needs of the leader for the needs of those in his care.

The problem is the 'you first' mindset. If no one wants to fulfil their role until they are sure the other does so first - then there will be an impasse; constant conflict. So, if one person fails the other withdraws their offer of respect or love, as the case may be. Or one partner spends more time pointing out the other's responsibility rather than fulfilling her own. If one does not consider their partner worthy of self-sacrifice or respect then one should consider the future, value or at least purpose of the relationship (perhaps it is purely for entertainment or self-satisfaction).

Now, when we bring weighty issues like abuse, infidelity/adultery, apathy and such into the discussion, things get more complicated. Not every relationship works out and it can't be fun to be in a one-sided affair. But if our actions and attitudes are completely dependent on another, then who is really in control? Perhaps if we pursued the kind of very profound Divine confidence, that no mortal can give to us, our relationships would benefit profoundly.

It is my belief that virtues like respect and love are not things you do - but things you are. And wherever you go and whomever you go with, there you are.

Love: overused cliché - under exercised virtue

I asked the question 'What is love?' recently and got a few interesting answers. Here are the definitions as I received them:

Love is both a noun and verb, both a power and an action. It is the recognition of, and attraction to, and expression of, beauty and kindness and intelligence. I believe it to be the purpose of the universe, the reason we're here. It gives all of creation meaning. And everything else - the mistakes we make, and the struggles we have - if those things lead us to understand love better, and lead us to love more - then I think that's all that matters, really.

Apart from the Biblical explanation in 1 Corinthians 13:4 - 6 verse 7 says it all for me ... Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
LAYMAN TERMS - IF IT DOESN'T EAT AWAY A PART OF YOU THEN TIS SOMETHING ELSE - NOT LOVE 

Heinlein said it pretty well: Love is that condition in which the other person's happiness is essential to your own.

Love is the law of attraction.

I would have a response to this question but the only things that come to mind are dry answers about social evolution on the one hand and "baby don't hurt me..." on the other hand. I'm useless to this discussion.

Difficult to define and relatively easy to see/identify.

Love is the word humans use to define the sense of attraction, compassion and attachment we feel towards other members of our species (and occasionally members of other species, like pets) caused by chemical processes in the brain. Sometimes caused and spurred on by arousal, pleasure, intellectual stimulation (also pleasure) and innate altruism.

Love is forgiveness on steroids…

Love is a willingness to sacrifice for something/someone…

Love is openness, or open energy, towards life, yourself, or another person/animal/thing. It can feel like it comes from outside, but it really is an inner thing that is possible to learn, practice and maintain …

...Love like Time is an abstraction... it needs to be viewed in relation to something else.  The Mamallian Brain comes equipped with the pleasure centers that facilitate this feeling of love.  Is that love?  I dont think so... It's far beyond just feeling or expression of feeling.

The intention of such an exercise was not so much to see what people thought about love but whether or not folks think that love has a significant role to play in the advancement of our civilisation. If love is biochemical - can we then synthesise a drug coupled with gene therapy and therefore 'make the world a better place'? Or find the hate/prejudice/idiot gene and remove it from our DNA forever? Certainly genomics is far more complex than I'm making it out to be - but perhaps love is not as complex, or impersonally synthesised through biochemical processes. If it was then there might be a lot more of it demonstrated in more uniform ways.

If love can be learned - what is it that we have to learn in order to effectively and correctly practice love? There seems to be some consensus that sacrifice is involved - that might mean some amount of inconvenience to self for the sake of another and outreach to complete strangers and even those with whom we disagree or have serious conflicts.

It seems to me that whatever love is - it's not easy and it doesn't come naturally, as 'forgiveness on steroids' suggests. We know that sexual attraction is part of love, but attraction certainly doesn't mean love is present, and not all love is about physical attraction. Indeed, many might agree that it is 'beyond just feeling'. But if it is 'innate altruism' what are the characteristics of such?

Love really is hard to define, but it seems we believe it is real nonetheless, and accept that there are elements of instinct and reason that make up love. And times when we must go against our instincts and impulses in order to demonstrate love and times when we must deny reason and rationality. The trick is knowing when and what must be denied.

More questions than answers seem to be arising.

Please...what do you think about this discourse so far?

What is Love? Your Views Please...

To be sure a question mired in cliché. But the actual practice of the subject may be a most rare occurrence indeed, so we shouldn't dismiss it too quickly. I intend to elaborate on the subject but crave your perspective.

Please, in your own words or the words that best fit your personal understanding...

Thanks,

CY

Thoughts On God, The People Who Need Him & The People Who Don't

Even though much harm has been done in the name of God, much good has been done too. But good doesn't make headlines, moreso, the good is often done in an individual life that only knows they are better off for the faith they have found. As much as Christians are saved from the 'world' (not planet Earth but the idolization of outward appearance, material possessions and self-centred thinking)  the world (planet Earth) is saved from them. As much as some insist there is no God and/or a need for one, some folks need God.

The reality of the world tells us that there are some problems in it. Not all the problems are caused by or even remotely related to religion. Despite being capable of unimaginable savagery for whatever reasons, some have emerged to find decency and compassion because of their encounter with God, as they perceive him. Others say that such people are weak, deprived and dysfunctional with a twisted sense of morality that needs external motive in order to seek goodness. Very true! Jesus came to help exactly this kind of person.

Respect is due to those who have no faith to speak of, yet possess a deep sense of morality  exemplified through character and lifestyle. But such persons shouldn't disdain their weaker brothers and sisters who find the need for supernatural help - and somehow receive it. If God is where one finds morality and hence a transformation for the better - what is wrong with that? Indeed, it is this faith that is preventing some from adding a little more breaking-and-entering, adultery and awkward vacations to the planet. But again, what doesn't happen doesn't make headlines.

In truth, we all seek to become 'better' - or at the very least wish to. But what does 'better' mean? Perhaps more patient, honest and forgiving - more courageous, loving and faithful (in relationships). Even Stephen Hawking suggested that we launch a 'program of systematic self-improvement of the species' employing our knowledge of evolution (Collins, 2007). Not surprising as we all want a better world. We also tend to think that our way is the best way to achieve that goal which leads inevitably to a world that demands the need to be better.

Somewhere along our journey though, we all seem to ask questions like: 'is this it?', 'can't we do better?', 'can I change?', 'what's wrong with me/the world/my Mother-in-Law?' We ask these questions because we recognize that something is wrong and if we raise the questions in the first instance, we are very likely correct. If you raise these questions but are wrong to do so, then something is wrong with you.

Often when folks query anothers position they are really wondering why others aren't more like them. They are, perhaps without a holy document like a Bible or Koran, presuming to know the best course of mankind using themselves as the touchstone. And like many 'believers' are consumed by a sense of superiority due to their privileged position of knowing and being the most perfect incarnation of what mankind is meant to be (vegetarians, republicans and Colombian drug lords, among many -or all- others, are also prone to such thinking).

The faithed are often (rightly) criticized for asserting that they and only they know the right. This of course could never be true and some of the unfaithed attest to that because  they and only they know what is right. We see that the problem isn't peculiar to faith or skepticism. But we can agree that there is a problem so insidious that it manages to participate even in the very solution.

Many, of a variety of ideological persuasions, agree that love is the universal answer - but vehemently disagree on what love is - introducing: square one.

The Parents Who Prayed Their Child to Death

Dale Neumann of Wisconsin USA was convicted of second-degree reckless homicide several months after his wife was convicted of the same. Their crime was neglecting to seek medical attention for their daughter who died from complications associated with undiagnosed diabetes. Neumann, according to the BBC, said "If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God...I am not believing what he said he would do."

This is pretty serious stuff and I think it should be made clear without any confusion that this kind of heartbreaking choice is in no way a Biblical or Godly expectation. Abdicating our responsibility to act (when it is in our power to do so) in the name of faith  is a recipe for heartache, bitterness and disappointment.

I can’t find a Biblical reference to support this faith-only approach to healthcare that wont need some amount of assumption or twisting to suggest turning to medical care is an act of doubt. When Hezekiah, one of the kings of Judah, faced imminent death he asked God to extend his life. Medicine, in the form of a 'poultice of figs' was used to treat his illness. Indeed, medicine was the answered prayer.

But what is it that according to Neumann God said 'he would do'? The Pentecostal Church is known for its emphasis on supernatural phenomena, like speaking in tongues, demon possession, exorcisms, visions and faith healing akin to that recorded in the Gospels (immediate and complete). With this in mind it may be James 5: 13-16  that is the source of Neumann's belief. It reads,

Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

The preceding passage does clearly state that a faithful prayer would lead to healing. It doesn't suggest that medical care should not be sought or that seeking such care is a sin of some kind. Paul suggested that Timothy drink wine and not just water due to his 'stomach' and 'frequent illnesses'. It seems that faith healing was not employed in every case of illness and it may even be that healing was not performed only for the sake of physical health.

Jesus performed miracles out of compassion but also as evidence of his divinity. Even though we don't know all the kinds of illnesses that he healed, the ones specified in Biblical text seemed to be untreatable (like blindness, paraplegia, epilepsy and leprosy for example) by any other means available at the time (save Peter's mother who 'only' had a fever - of course we don't know the severity thereof). And generally divine intervention in health crises is sought when there is no other recourse though one is free to pray about anything at anytime if one wishes.

Neumann's reasoning almost suggests that we are to do nothing most or all of the time when faced with health crises. But James suggests that faith and action work together,

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Though James is specifically talking about the issue of righteousness by works vs faith - we can learn that genuine faith results in righteous action. The idea that 'faith can move mountains' doesn't only mean that one waits for the mountain to move but your faith spurs you on to find a shovel and start digging. The shovel in Nuemann's case might have been a doctors visit.

Still, this is a tragic case for everyone involved and one can't help but think about the needless suffering of the little girl and the parents whose sincerity was sadly misplaced. While this case doesn't mean that folks aren't or can't be healed by faith, it does remind us that faith is not a substitute for action but a catalyst.

Book Review: Language of God by Francis Collins

This is one the best apologetic works put out by the side of faith in this new debate around faith, science and skepticism.

That Collins is head of the Human Genome Project adds a hefty amount of credibility to his argument proposing harmony between science and faith. Even more convincing is that he defends science itself against forces (including irrational and incomplete ideas) within religion that would counter basic facts of nature as well as cogent, tested and accepted theories. He is not just an apologist for the Divine but for the natural as well.

Collins successfully guides both skeptics and believers through the essential definitions, arguments and theories of each approach so both can have a clearer understanding of the other and even their own position. There is no doubt that Collins is both a devoted (and accomplished) scientist and theist.

Apart from sharing some of his personal journey from atheism to faith and the role science played thereof, he shows with great effort to be impartial and tolerant of all views, just how the beauty, intricacy, structure and harmony of the human body & DNA, the universal  Moral Law  and the cosmos itself points to a Divine presence. He also counters some of the primary arguments of atheism's more prominent figures including Dawkins. His complete lack of hostility, his logic and scientific expertise make him a worthy opponent.

The reader will be encouraged not just to consider their own knowledge and approach but equipped with a mercifully simple introduction to scientific and spiritual concepts with which they may not be familiar. The atheist is given alot to consider (some might find parts of his argument too metaphysical) and the theist is educated and encouraged not just by a scientist but a man with an admirable understanding of God's nature.

Finally, Collins offers his own alternative theory to circumvent the irrationality of Creationism and the lack of rigour in Intelligent Design, but considers the reality of a universe governed by the interaction of the laws of physics, chemistry and evolutionary biology as revealed by science. He calls this approach BioLogos.

Unquestionably worth a read for persons of all persuasions.

Writers Note:

Collins includes an appendix where he discusses Bioethics broaching issues like cloning, stem cell research, genetic mutations and disease and the implications thereof on healthcare policy. Indeed he even touches on the current healthcare debate now raging in the USA. He does so with great objectivity and responsibility considering the many arguments for against each issue. Ensure you  read this section as well.

But Seriously: The 5ive Things Women Most Want

1. Someone they can respect - this comes first only because a man worthy of respect will show the same. Every woman craves a worthy man though power, physical aggression & wealth are often mistaken for the primary qualifiers of integrity, confidence, and diligence. A woman wants a man who can 'handle' her (even testing their partner by crossing the line - sometimes too far - life has enough real tests ladies). But a partner who wins their respect fulfils another valuable female need...

2. Security - women often seek out powerful, rich or physically aggressive men because such things, on their face, should provide a safe environment. One can't run a secure home without a sense of physical, financial and emotional security after all. But the shortfall occurs when actual security is sacrificed for its authentic looking evil brothers. True safety is found in fidelity, honesty & industry.

3. Love & Affection - this could be a lot of things: romance, thoughtfulness, gentleness even predicting/anticipating her needs & fancies. This doesn't mean round the clock concierge service but some demonstration of endearment, physical attraction (not just sexual desire) and understanding of her moods & what influences them. That her partner knows her range of preferences from choice of movie to a dry toilet seat. A dry toilet seat in the down position can be a real turn on. Weird but true. The evil siblings of love & affection are sweet nothings (or lyrics in Jamaica), sex, material gifts (not inherently evil but without sincerity often lead to disappointment at the hands of a Playa) & domination/control of her partner.

4. Laughter - who doesn't want and need to laugh? A man who can help her see the lighter side of situations, challenges & herself is prime real estate and easily beats a hard body or pretty face. A sense of humour is the difference between a conversation & an argument - a problem & an adventure. Laughter's doppleganger is excitement and here sensual stimulation through overindulgence in alcohol/drugs, over-the-top partying & even danger, replace a genuine love for life. Laughter is often a measure of friendship too, and that is the last point.

5.  Friendship - this is where the whole listening phenom comes into play. Friends can be goofy together, mess up and even be at their worst without fear of rejection. Pretty self explanatory. The distortion of friendship is co-dependency: the unrealistic expectation that the partner is her source of happiness and thus responsible for her well-being and vice-versa. It is this relationship that a woman can receive the sense that her opinion & feelings are highly valued.

The points are nothing new and really won't change with time as they are our most basic relational needs. The thing to consider is where we go wrong in our search to fulfil these natural requirements. All dissatisfaction and enmity, suggests CS Lewis,  is firmly founded in the distortion, misinterpretation and dysfunction of not just the needs in question, but our overall human condition.