Christianity's view on marriage is often misunderstood. Jesus quoted the Old Testament passage "The two shall become one flesh." In our world of advanced knowledge, we know that one plus one can never equal one, so was Jesus wrong or crazy?
1 + 1 < > 1
Was Jesus advocating that one of the 2 marriage partners must lose his or her own identity (0+1 = 1) or that marriage is really a 50/50 relationship (0.5+0.5 = 1)? No. Neither partner should relinquish his or her identity; marriage is not a 50/50 relationship; and furthermore, we are not incomplete and made complete in marriage (as if we were only half alive until we are married). Marriage is a relationship in which 2 complete people become one.
1 * 1 = 1
Jesus was stating that 2 complete people form a single union and bond in a single marriage. My identity is still intact, and the identity of my wife is still intact; in fact, a perfect marriage is one that allows me to be myself.
0*a = 0 -> zero is a selfish number in multiplication (or a sink)
1*a = a -> 1 is the identity of multiplication.
My identity is found in Christ, and I am only myself in Christ who gives me life and breath.
I can do nothing without Christ (John 15:5).
I can do all things with Christ (Phil 4:13).
The trouble with marriage is that as individuals, none of us is perfect. We are a fraction of what we should be. God designed us to be complete, a perfect 1 as it were, but we don't meet the standard (Rom 3:23). In mathematics, when 2 fractions are multiplied, the result is not closer to 1; it is closer to 0.
My bride is a pretty good person; let's give her a 0.8. I'm not quite as good as she is, but I'm still pretty good, so let's give me a 0.7.
Our relationship is then defined by the multiplication of our own lives: 0.8 * 0.7 = 0.56. The result clearly indicates that our marriage is further from unity than either of us individually. My imperfection and sin compounded with that of my bride causes my marriage to be farther from Godly than either of us would have been alone. This is why the marriage relationship is so difficult.
Interestingly enough, the marriage relationship can never be closer to unity than the weaker member (remember 1 * a = a), so even if one person is perfect, the marriage will still only be as close to Godly as the imperfect person. Since none of us is perfect, we can all improve our marriages by improving our own walk with Christ.
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, July 14, 2011
How does Homosexual Marriage Affect the Chess Game?
1) Imagine a chess game with no queens but instead with 4 kings.
2) Imagine a chess game with no kings but instead with 4 queens.
The game of chess is based on the royal wedding relationship between a man and a woman. I have indeed played a game or two with substitute pieces in my day. If I were missing a pawn, a checker may have taken its place. I'm not saying that roles cannot be filled by others. The question is, "How well can these roles be filled by others?"
Just as I may use a checker to represent a pawn in the game of chess, someone else may fill the role of wife with a man or husband with a woman. However, as in the case of the checker in the chess game, there is noticeably something awry with the man filling the wife's role and the woman filling the husband's role.
Clearly if there are 4 kings on the chess board and no queens, the game is hardly a remnant of the traditional game of chess. The 2 major power pieces have been removed and replaced by second equally weak, needy, and prone-to-peril kings. Similarly if there are 4 queens on the chessboard and no kings, the game is just as disimilar to the traditional game of chess. With no kings to protect, with significantly more power in the addition of queens, there is no longer a point to the game in the absence of the king to be protected.
Even more complex imagine a game with 2 white queens and 2 black kings or vice-versa. Opponents would be playing one overburdened with protection and little power while the other is ladened with a powerhouse and no concern for protection. Clearly these opponents will not be playing the same game.
One would be hard pressed to even call these scenarios a chess game.
With such a round peg into the square hole scenario, it seems only too elementary to say that nature itself rejects homosexuality. The rules for traditional chess will need to be rewritten, and depending on the gender of choice, not only must strategy be redivised, a completely new purpose must be invented. Ultimately, if homosexual marriage is to be allowed, then by design and practice, it cannot be "traditional" marriage. One would be hard pressed to even call the potential scenarios marriage.
2) Imagine a chess game with no kings but instead with 4 queens.
The game of chess is based on the royal wedding relationship between a man and a woman. I have indeed played a game or two with substitute pieces in my day. If I were missing a pawn, a checker may have taken its place. I'm not saying that roles cannot be filled by others. The question is, "How well can these roles be filled by others?"
Just as I may use a checker to represent a pawn in the game of chess, someone else may fill the role of wife with a man or husband with a woman. However, as in the case of the checker in the chess game, there is noticeably something awry with the man filling the wife's role and the woman filling the husband's role.
Clearly if there are 4 kings on the chess board and no queens, the game is hardly a remnant of the traditional game of chess. The 2 major power pieces have been removed and replaced by second equally weak, needy, and prone-to-peril kings. Similarly if there are 4 queens on the chessboard and no kings, the game is just as disimilar to the traditional game of chess. With no kings to protect, with significantly more power in the addition of queens, there is no longer a point to the game in the absence of the king to be protected.
Even more complex imagine a game with 2 white queens and 2 black kings or vice-versa. Opponents would be playing one overburdened with protection and little power while the other is ladened with a powerhouse and no concern for protection. Clearly these opponents will not be playing the same game.
One would be hard pressed to even call these scenarios a chess game.
With such a round peg into the square hole scenario, it seems only too elementary to say that nature itself rejects homosexuality. The rules for traditional chess will need to be rewritten, and depending on the gender of choice, not only must strategy be redivised, a completely new purpose must be invented. Ultimately, if homosexual marriage is to be allowed, then by design and practice, it cannot be "traditional" marriage. One would be hard pressed to even call the potential scenarios marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)