Marriage and relationships - ego or God?

[AndyDT]

I went into dating hoping it would be another way to be a channel for God. That's still my aim and nothing I've experienced has changed that. But in the last relationship these hopes seemed to turn to this ego interaction loop of somebody using me as a pet project to manipulate to meet her needs for unconditional love (her words) and possessiveness and constant judgement. There are people who say, including Paul of Tarsus, that you come into life with nothing and leave with nothing so all you can do is give away. But to do this the other person has to let you be free to do this.

To my mind if I go into relationships hoping to take or "get something for me" I'm finished already. Paul also says that it would be better if people didn't marry (1 Corinthians 7:1-9) . I take this to mean that for a lot of people it's an ego thing done just to serve one's own ego demands.

So 1) do you agree that in dating and relationships if you're met with control etc then you should terminate the relationship because it infringes you God-given freedom? and 2) In marriage do you still have this freedom (the above passage says the wife has authority over your body, but not your mind and soul)?

[rumborak]

An absolutely serious question, Andy: Have you considered a monastery? You seem to have a constant struggle between your love of God and your human urges. I would think you would find many kindred spirits there.
Maybe not to join one, but at least have a conversation with them and see what they have to say. It should be pretty obvious at this point that none of us here can follow your train of thought.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

Paul also says that it would be better if people didn't marry (1 Corinthians 7:1-9) . I take this to mean that for a lot of people it's an ego thing done just to serve one's own ego demands.

You can take it however you want, but that's not how Paul intended it. 

It isn't about an ego.  It is about being with someone that makes you the entire, full you that you are supposed to be. 

[eric42434224]

I went into dating hoping it would be another way to be a channel for God.

Mistake #1. 

[Adami]

I went into dating hoping it would be another way to be a channel for God.

Why?

But in the last relationship these hopes seemed to turn to this ego interaction loop of somebody using me as a pet project to manipulate to meet her needs for unconditional love (her words) and possessiveness and constant judgement.

Why?

 

To my mind if I go into relationships hoping to take or "get something for me" I'm finished already.

Why?

Paul also says that it would be better if people didn't marry (1 Corinthians 7:1-9) . I take this to mean that for a lot of people it's an ego thing done just to serve one's own ego demands.

Why?

So 1) do you agree that in dating and relationships if you're met with control etc then you should terminate the relationship because it infringes you God-given freedom? and 2) In marriage do you still have this freedom (the above passage says the wife has authority over your body, but not your mind and soul)?

You know Andy, for someone so concerned with ego, you sure do spend a huge amount of time thinking about yourself.

[bosk1]

Andy, I can't speak for others, but the primary reason I almost never contribute anything in your threads is because you blur together the idea of God with other things that really are not related at all.  It is hard to offer specific, helpful advice when you do this.  For example, the idea of "ego" as you express it is not directly addressed by God at all.  Your concept of ego is, in some ways, related to selfishness and other similar ideas, but the way you conceptualize it, it is impossible to really give a perspective on how God fits into the picture.  Just so many misconceptions that I wouldn't even know where to start.   

[Adami]

Andy, I can't speak for others, but the primary reason I almost never contribute anything in your threads is because you blur together the idea of God with other things that really are not related at all.  It is hard to offer specific, helpful advice when you do this.  For example, the idea of "ego" as you express it is not directly addressed by God at all.  Your concept of ego is, in some ways, related to selfishness and other similar ideas, but the way you conceptualize it, it is impossible to really give a perspective on how God fits into the picture.  Just so many misconceptions that I wouldn't even know where to start.

All of this is true. Another reason I and maybe others have stopped trying to contribute much is because Andy makes these threads, we all offer tons of advice, then he ignores it all and posts another thread. After a while, it's pretty clear he's not looking for any actual advice.

[bosk1]

Yes.  And Andy clearly seems to hold an underlying belief in denial of self to the point of near asceticism.  That makes it difficult to offer advice either from a truly Christian point of view or from a non-religious viewpoint because, coming from most perspectives, I think a lot of us agree that selfishness is "bad."  But beyond that, we all also probably agree that complete or near asceticism is not the goal.  It is certainly an option, but it isn't one that most of us can identify with or offer any advice on.  And, again, coming from a Christian perspective myself, I can say that while a few religious groups who label themselves Christian may teach near or complete asceticism, that is not really what Jesus or his disciples (including Paul) taught, so it is missing the point to try to hold that as the goal for aching a better relationship with God.

[rumborak]

Yes.  And Andy clearly seems to hold an underlying belief in denial of self to the point of near asceticism. 

Hence my suggestion of a monastery.

rumborak

[AndyDT]

Andy, I can't speak for others, but the primary reason I almost never contribute anything in your threads is because you blur together the idea of God with other things that really are not related at all.  It is hard to offer specific, helpful advice when you do this.  For example, the idea of "ego" as you express it is not directly addressed by God at all.  Your concept of ego is, in some ways, related to selfishness and other similar ideas, but the way you conceptualize it, it is impossible to really give a perspective on how God fits into the picture.  Just so many misconceptions that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Ego AIUI is separateness from God so it makes it relevant in my view.

[AndyDT]

Yes.  And Andy clearly seems to hold an underlying belief in denial of self to the point of near asceticism.  That makes it difficult to offer advice either from a truly Christian point of view or from a non-religious viewpoint because, coming from most perspectives, I think a lot of us agree that selfishness is "bad."  But beyond that, we all also probably agree that complete or near asceticism is not the goal.  It is certainly an option, but it isn't one that most of us can identify with or offer any advice on.  And, again, coming from a Christian perspective myself, I can say that while a few religious groups who label themselves Christian may teach near or complete asceticism, that is not really what Jesus or his disciples (including Paul) taught, so it is missing the point to try to hold that as the goal for aching a better relationship with God.

I'm starting with the absolute to try to find the essence. No sex before marriage is arguably a form of asceticism but many Christians hold fast to it so their is demonstrable value to it at least for Christians. Of course one can enjoy the worldly things but to not get lost in them I'd say it's vital to know the essence of what they are and what God is.

[Adami]

Where did you find a definition of ego that states that is is seperateness from god? As far as I know that's a rather odd interpretation, but clearly one you find yourself liking more than other (more realistic) definitions. Ever ask yourself why you prefer thinking of ego as some horrible thing that must be destroyed at all costs?

[hefdaddy42]

Because he hates himself.

[AndyDT]

Where did you find a definition of ego that states that is is seperateness from god? As far as I know that's a rather odd interpretation, but clearly one you find yourself liking more than other (more realistic) definitions. Ever ask yourself why you prefer thinking of ego as some horrible thing that must be destroyed at all costs?

Ken Wilber, Helen Shucman, Wayne Dyer, Eckhart Tolle. All very talented or prolific people. Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart allude to this definition as well. Mystical Islamic poet Rumi also. Herman Hesse in Steppenwolf said "The ancient Asiatics knew this well enough, and in the Buddhist Yoga an exact technique was devised for unmasking the illusion of the personality. The human merry-go-round sees many changes: the illusion that cost India the efforts of thousands of years to unmask is the same illusion that the West has labored just as hard to maintain and strengthen."

[bosk1]

Yes, and NONE of that has anything to do with God.  God and "mysticism" are not compatible.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

If you are into mysticism, we are not a match.

-God

[bosk1]

If you are into mysticism and will not cut my meat, we are not a match.

-MetalJunkie's Girlfriend

[yeshaberto]

 

[Ravenheart]

It's all a conspiracy to appear nude in front of everyone you know.

[Ħ]

So 1) do you agree that in dating and relationships if you're met with control etc then you should terminate the relationship because it infringes you God-given freedom?

If you are one day hoping for marriage, then you should be looking someone where you'll be okay with giving up some control of your life. And she should be willing to do the same.

2) In marriage do you still have this freedom (the above passage says the wife has authority over your body, but not your mind and soul)?

Your mind and soul are God's and not your wife's. You should give all of yourself (heart, soul, mind, etc.) over to God. Your body is your wife's and that's it.

You're going to have to compromise some of your dreams and aspirations and parts of your lifestyle, but so is she. This is normal for marriage.

[AndyDT]

Yes, and NONE of that has anything to do with God.  God and "mysticism" are not compatible.

Says who? Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people would disagree. Are you now saying you know better than Meister Eckhart et al?

[AndyDT]

So 1) do you agree that in dating and relationships if you're met with control etc then you should terminate the relationship because it infringes you God-given freedom?

If you are one day hoping for marriage, then you should be looking someone where you'll be okay with giving up some control of your life. And she should be willing to do the same.

2) In marriage do you still have this freedom (the above passage says the wife has authority over your body, but not your mind and soul)?

Your mind and soul are God's and not your wife's. You should give all of yourself (heart, soul, mind, etc.) over to God. Your body is your wife's and that's it.

You're going to have to compromise some of your dreams and aspirations and parts of your lifestyle, but so is she. This is normal for marriage.

Some maybe but I hope that you could support each other in most or your main dreams and aspirations.

[King Postwhore]

Andy, I suggest you stop trying to interpret life from a book.  You seem to process it all backwards.  Make yourself happy and your significant other.  The more you over analyze the more you miss out on what's important.

[Adami]

Andy, I suggest you stop trying to interpret life from a book.  You seem to process it all backwards.  Make yourself happy and your significant other.  The more you over analyze the more you miss out on what's important.

Based on all of his posts, I'm pretty sure he views happiness as a negative thing unless it's somehow glorifying god, though he seems naturally distasteful of god.

[rumborak]

Yes, and NONE of that has anything to do with God.  God and "mysticism" are not compatible.

Says who? Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people would disagree. Are you now saying you know better than Meister Eckhart et al?

Dare I even ask how you end up revering a 13th century theologian from Germany?

rumborak

[bosk1]

Yes, and NONE of that has anything to do with God.  God and "mysticism" are not compatible.

Says who? Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people would disagree. Are you now saying you know better than Meister Eckhart et al?

Since Meister Eckhart is not Jesus or one of his apostles authorized to speak on his behalf, I don't really care what Meister Eckhart has to say on the subject of God.  Whether I "know better than" him or not is irrelevant.  I can go right back to the original source and see what Jesus and his apostles had to say about God rather than listen to someone's opinion hundreds of years after the fact who may or may not have the first clue.

[AndyDT]

Yes, and NONE of that has anything to do with God.  God and "mysticism" are not compatible.

Says who? Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people would disagree. Are you now saying you know better than Meister Eckhart et al?

Since Meister Eckhart is not Jesus or one of his apostles authorized to speak on his behalf, I don't really care what Meister Eckhart has to say on the subject of God.  Whether I "know better than" him or not is irrelevant.  I can go right back to the original source and see what Jesus and his apostles had to say about God rather than listen to someone's opinion hundreds of years after the fact who may or may not have the first clue.

And they based their thinking or direct quotes on sources before Jesus which aren't in the Bible at all or most Bibles e.g. the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Menander etc. So it's actually impossible to say that you can ignore everything else because the Bible uses other things.

The mystics including - if you look at the wiki page - Loyola, St.John of the Cross, St.Francis of Assisi, Julian of Norwich were directly inspired or even physically affected by the Bible and Jesus. Jesus said that believers would do greater things than He so why ignore these things? They had divine revelations, performed or experienced miracles.

You say God doesn't "directly address" ego. That's fine. But aren't we all trying to get to the same point? Addressing ego is one of the tools that is used to fight sin (assuming it isn't one and the same with sin). I agree that it isnt the way to salvation in Christ but I'm certain that killing ego in the present (as it arguably can't be destroyed completely) is essential for recognising God and connecting to be able to even seek forgiveness in Christ. In other words you can't be following ego and following Christ at the same time. How much clearer a definition do you want of its importance than that?

[eric42434224]

This is serious, and not an insult to anyone.

After reading this thread and so many others regarding god and religion, I can say this:

My life seems SO much easier and simpler because I dont wrestle with stuff like this. 

[rumborak]

Well, most balanced people don't struggle with this, Christian or not.

Andy, having an ego is part of being human. I fail to see how it can be in God's interest to kill and suppress what He gave you. Or viewed from the other side, why do you follow Someone who asks you to mentally maim yourself? Because that's what you are doing, and it can't be good for you.

[Adami]

Andy I strongly suggest you see a psychologist. I do not say this insultingly, but with care and concern. If these posts truly represent what's going on in your head, then you need some help. See a psychologist, not a priest, or a pastor....but a psychologist.

[bosk1]

Yes, and NONE of that has anything to do with God.  God and "mysticism" are not compatible.

Says who? Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people would disagree. Are you now saying you know better than Meister Eckhart et al?

Since Meister Eckhart is not Jesus or one of his apostles authorized to speak on his behalf, I don't really care what Meister Eckhart has to say on the subject of God.  Whether I "know better than" him or not is irrelevant.  I can go right back to the original source and see what Jesus and his apostles had to say about God rather than listen to someone's opinion hundreds of years after the fact who may or may not have the first clue.

And they based their thinking or direct quotes on sources before Jesus which aren't in the Bible at all or most Bibles e.g. the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Menander etc. So it's actually impossible to say that you can ignore everything else because the Bible uses other things.

Well, no.  Unfortunately, that is completely false.  I would suggest that you spend time reading and studying the source itself rather than what philosophers hundreds of years later have pontificated about.

You say God doesn't "directly address" ego. That's fine. But aren't we all trying to get to the same point? Addressing ego is one of the tools that is used to fight sin (assuming it isn't one and the same with sin). I agree that it isnt the way to salvation in Christ but I'm certain that killing ego in the present (as it arguably can't be destroyed completely) is essential for recognising God and connecting to be able to even seek forgiveness in Christ. In other words you can't be following ego and following Christ at the same time. How much clearer a definition do you want of its importance than that?

Unfortunately, no, I do NOT think we are trying to get to the same point, which is what I was saying in my original post in the tread.  You state, "I agree that it isnt the way to salvation in Christ."  That is the only thing I am interested in getting to.  And it was the only thing Christ is interested in.  Finding God is about listening to and following Christ, not in waging a philosophical battle with "ego."  You are correct that there is some overlap.  But if the ends are not the same, the fact that there is considerable overlap in the means is of no value.

[rumborak]

Andy I strongly suggest you see a psychologist. I do not say this insultingly, but with care and concern. If these posts truly represent what's going on in your head, then you need some help. See a psychologist, not a priest, or a pastor....but a psychologist.

I kinda have to say the same thing. In the beginning it was all funny and shit, but lately there's been a lot of red flags, and considering there's other people involved in this (I.e. women), I would say too it's time to look into this professionally.

rumborak

[Chino]

This is what happens when you trust what people 2000 years ago had to say. Andy, try and keep religion and relationships separate. Relationships are hard enough on their own, there is no sense in throwing anything else into the mix.

[Ħ]

This is what happens when you trust what people 2000 years ago had to say. Andy, try and keep religious and relationships separate. Relationships are hard enough on their own, there is no sense in throwing anything else into the mix.

What if your religion dictates how your relationships are supposed to be?

[bosk1]

rumborak:  Looking out for the women since 2012.