A wake up call, yes perhaps...or merely an answer and guidance?
His thread's title is incendiary because women who read it know of a truth within themselves that they are indeed capable...and the men who have women who love them know it as well.
...so the very notion that women can't love a man seems ridiculous to all who've experienced it, thus many take offense at it (and all have a right to feel that way btw)...and defenses go up.
...but as I read, it seems his deeper issue/question is, "generally, why don't women love men in the same ways that men love women?" Or "can women express love to men the same ways men generally express love to women? Is it even possible?"
...and I'm sure calling the love of a man "true(r) love" (vs a woman's love) definitely didn't help things either...but I think he's getting this phrase...maybe...perhaps...from the lessons given in scripture where "there's no greater love that one who gives their life..." and "husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church and gave his life for her"...self-sacrifice...but this instruction wasn't given in scripture to women to lay down their lives for their man.
...then you have the corruption of having relationships in this fallen world, that even many Christians fall victim to where people just take, take, take...
So the thread quickly devolved, defenses went up, and blahh..
But it doesn't feel to me like it was the OP's intention to cause conflict or to be provocative. Just going by my spirit. That's why I feel this probably shouldn't be a public discussion for sensitivity sake.
I see. You're right.
I do believe the OP's coming from a place of personal disappointment. Their conclusions could be discussed, but it's hard to take that level of prejudice in seriousness because it is, frankly, a little funny. I really don't think most of us were truly offended, for that reason. I don't see a viciously hardened heart either, most of us sensed a very young person speaking, albeit a little bitter.
Now, you're bringing something meaningful to the table with your comments.
Considering Christ and the church. Interesting point. I've been noticing over the years how people are quick to identify men as Christ and women as church. It's always somehow omitted that men also are part of the Bride. God's royal consort does not consist of women only. There are multiple examples of God addressing the whole congregation as a woman breaking wedlock, or as a beautiful bride, both men and women are lumped together and treated as "she". I think we need to better separate what is God and what is man, to assess this analogy more clearly.
You're making an interesting remark with "but this instruction wasn't given in scripture to women to lay down their lives for their man". I sat on this for a bit, because I felt positive that the Scripture suggest that the wife should respond with equal measure, even though the verse might not be as obvious. I looked a bit through the Scripture, and I found this. It seems directed to both men and women.
1 John 3:16 By this we know what love is: Jesus laid down His life for us, and
we [mixed audience] ought
[ought. Not a matter of "we should" or "it would be nice"] to lay down our lives for our brothers
[ADELPHON, fellow Christians, not gender specific].
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he
[AUTOU, "self, he, she, it, they, them, same" in Greek] lay down his life for his
[autou] friends.
If for friends and brethren, how much more for a spouse. Now, the OP might not believe that there was ever a woman who did that. But regardless of that, I take it that women are to do the same. Now, why would that not be in the same context.
I think the verse about lying one's life down like Christ, in discussion about marriage, is to be understood in its context. The opening statement is "submit one to another". I think in context this example is a premonition against a gender unique temptation. And I will note that I say this very, VERY carefully, in an
absolutely generalized way, and in the context of Paul's societal structure and its typical roles, in the times where things were still governed by brute strength. But this is generally what I mean: the ones who are "stronger" have temptation unique to "the stronger" to use their power to lord over and force their way. For the parallel reason, woman is told to submit, because of unique temptation of one who is "weaker" when forcefully subdued (which women were back in the day), to seek cunning ways to overthrow. God doesn't want oppressive, mistrustful, competitive or hostile unity like this, on either end. Imagine if organs in the body forced or backstabbed one another in this way, we would be dead. It isn't conducive to life. But bottom line, this is one and the same temptation - to have one's own way - just taking a different face in different societal roles.
2
1
