It's a romantic saying between two people. "You complete me." That's nice. Except it's not particularly popular today. Or, at least, should not be. I mean, we're all about "be yourself" and "you do you" and "believe in yourself" and "follow your dream" with very, very little room for "I'm not complete" and "You complete me." Today it's a nice, warm saying, but mostly romantic drivel not acceptable in modern realities. Of course, that's not accurate. Modern "realities" aren't solid realities and we live in a world perfectly happy to call things "real" without requiring us to maintain that they're actually real.
So what is real in this question? Is there any truth to the notion of "You complete me"? Well, since I try to live in a biblical worldview, I'd say it is definitely real (versus all that "I'm perfectly operational in myself" perspective). "Oh? Biblical? What are you talking about?" Thanks for asking. (It's always helpful if I can control the conversation, right?) Scripture says that in Creation God made Man. He gave him some tasks, some instructions, and set him to work. But God declared, for the first time in His Creation, that something was "not good." "It is not good," He said, "that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." (Gen 2:18) "A helper fit for him," was the aim. The word is specifically "a counterpart, a mate, an opposite." The idea is "Where he is strong this 'helper' will be weak and where he is weak this 'helper' will be strong. Where the helper needs help he can help and where he needs help the helper can help." The idea is a complement. Look the word up. A complement is "somthing that completes or makes perfect." It is "either of two parts needed to complete the whole." God designed Adam and Eve to be a "fit," counterparts (not the same) that help and complete one another. "You complete me" was God's idea.
Biblically marriage is designed to complete us. Biblically the male and the female are intended to be complementary, filling in each others' weaknesses to make a more complete whole. Biblically the concept of "two become one" (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31) is God's actual planned structure to make a better unit. Biblically divorce is a radical, dangerous, nonsensical concept. So Jesus said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt 19:4-6) It is God's design that male and female would be distinct and unique (not the same) and would be complementary for the purpose of completing each other. It doesn't seem like our new "I don't need anyone else" or our new "marriage" or our new "sexual equality" have offered an improvement on that design.
14 comments:
Another perfect Biblical argument against same-sex fake marriage. Well done!
I call it "gay mirage" for a reason.
I've seen that and it always gives me a chuckle.
It's always interesting when people express a Biblical concept without meaning to.
Yes, like when evolutionists describe nature with the word "design."
It is astounding that Dan would declare that I am damned by God for believing the Bible in my declaration that God designed husbands and wives to complete each other. (And that little revelation would give you a clue as to why I can't allow him to comment on my blog in continuous disregard for the rules of commenting on my blog.)
Stan,
Exactly. As I was looking for information recently, I was surprised by how often the language of "design" and "purpose" is used by those who argue for evolution. Yet those some people argue that there is neither design of purpose.
It's always interesting when Dan chooses to speak for God. It's especially interesting since he denies a God who would actually damn people, and the existence of hell.
To be fair, almost no one who uses the phrase means it in terms of a God who is actually damning anyone. It is practical atheism in a sense.
Dan's behavior in comment strings, etc, is why I permanently banned him from my blog long ago. How he can consistently defend that which God has called an abomination and yet still claim the name of Christ is beyond my comprehension.
That is some dedication to the trolling. Banded from multiple blogs and still sending in comments even knowing they're immediately getting deleted. Gotta give him credit for his dedication to his craft.
To be fair, your probably right. But Dan can be very specific when he calls down God’s wrath and damnation on those he disagrees with.
"Dedication to his craft." That's probably not what I would call it. So I wouldn't give him credit.
Yes, Craig, he's adept at damning those with whom he disagrees. It's a tool of rhetoric, I suppose, where you can damn someone and, by doing so, obviously nullify their argument without, you know, offering reasons they were wrong or you were right.
Just like throwing racist at someone.
Wasn't a compliment because being dedicated to harassing people wouldn't be seen as a good thing.
Post a Comment