Well, girls! You know I couldn't let this die after your above "giddy" responses. LOL!
Here is an exchange in e-mail which sums up the point I was trying to make, IMO. Just wanted to leave the thread with these points noted.
E-mail response:
I agree with everything you've said; 1) we can cause our spouse to fall into temptation, 2) Yes, s/he would be solely accountable for their adulterous action, 3) Yes, the scriptures caution the one who would defraud.
I also agree that people often seem to take their marriage lightly, and seemingly don't apply scripture to their marriage...
My response:
Yes, and thanks for reading it. I think that we are putting a lot of blame on the one that falls into temptation and not really looking at the person that defrauded in some way. We made the temptation harder for them to avoid, IMO. That's what I was trying to focus on, but I guess my wording wasn't plain enough. Actually, I thought I brought out some good points that were missed.
One especially about the father being admonished not to provoke his child to anger or he would become discouraged. If the child becomes discouraged, isn't part of the blame on the father even if the son falls into sin? I think the father is part of the blame.
And the person that, in I Cor, that eats meat offered to idols in front of a weak person causing him to perhaps move into idolatry. The Bible said that the person causing the weak to fall has sinned. That's pretty plain to me in these instances that the "defrauder" has to reckon with their part in the deed done.
E-mail response:
Re: the other things you wrote -- again, I agree with you... provided you mean "a pattern of defrauding," which I think you do & have stated so. I think it's still part of a heart issue, though. WHY is the spouse "defrauding?" Was she in a car accident that has caused her extreme neck & back pain which has lasted for three months? Did he have major surgery which has made him bedridden for several weeks? Well, s/he has not chosen to defraud out of malicious intent -- KWIM??? That's not "defrauding" IMO. Defrauding does not mean simply to withhold sex... I think it means to withhold sex for selfish, manipulative, etc. reasons. (Does that make sense?) I think my definition ties in with "kept back by fraud.
My response:
Yes, I agree - I think it must be a selfish and manipulative thing. They weren't allowed to touch a women during her menstral cycle, so that's a given that normal issues are taken into account.
I think we did clarify that we thought the defrauding was a continual pattern.
Where, I think, the disconnect came in is that no one seemed to want to believe that the "defrauder" could cause someone to sin. I think they could. Mainly, because the Bible says, "Brethren if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."
That means the person could be in a weak or fragile state of mind during a time when they are being "defrauded", for whatever reason, and fall into sin. The person "defrauding" is responsible as in the above scripture to help them, but they didn't. So, I think, they can be part of causing or even driving a person to sin.
In other words, I think we have a very grave responsibility to be careful with the weak. We must make sure we are not "defrauding" our husbands, especially, in this sexual day and age. Just my opinion.
E-mail response:
Yes, exactly! So I guess that settles it & there's nothing left to say! LOL!!!!!!!
Men also need to be careful not defraud his wife; even if it's emotionally... but sexually as well. It goes both ways, absolutely. But you know that.
Linear Mode
