What's Wrong with Meeting People in Church or Through Family?

  • Thread starter progressivenerdgirl
  • Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
Modern convention and habits are no excuse. Liberalism is heresy.
You could scarcely have picked a broader term...

Which liberalism?

a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

or

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

Of course there are far more definitions, but I expect you're either working with the philisophica\political idea of libralism or the theological one.

It could just be:

In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.


Really you could mean any of those, or a combination of them, I'm just wondering what you specifically mean.
 

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
Cutting to the chase, yes, if you have been informed to expect it. If you're following a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night it's perfectly reasonable to expect that if it leads you to an obstacle that obstetrical may be overcome by supernatural means.

If you know this happened:

Then it reasonably follows that this will happen

Even if no other natural causation indicates it will. Gods power is higher than any other, it is entirely reasonable to expect his will to be done no mater what any other power or force may dictate.

The same applies to resurrection, or any other modern day miracles you can reasonably expect.
When making a Logical deduction, its probably not best to cut the chase. (Much like Algebra)

If people expect it, then its not miraculous, its natural. Creation is a Miracle but, its also Natural, because we are used to it. It is seen and it is expected. Much like the Manna, the Cloud and the Pillar of Fire.


Faith is Trusting in what cannot be seen. When Elijah raised the boy from the Dead, that had never been done before. It was purely out of Faith in God.

Compare that with Gideon who Tests God with Wool. Not Faith. Yet, Rational.
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
You don't have to live at home (though there's nothing wrong with that, I don't) but that does not mean you are not under his authority. The father is king, priest and prophet for his family; and his authority does not expire with a label. Though it can be, of course, transferred.

Over reaching.

The father is king priest and prophet for his family, except they be under his ROOF and in submission to...

king... one could not be saved without the father allowing it
priest... SAA
under roof... he is authority of his HOUSEHOLD
not under Roof... Child has LEFT the authority... ie prodigal
wife is not to LEAVE, as in depart from the house

Understand??? Progressive you are actually in VIOLATION of the principal you purport exists... you have certain things out of kilter.
 
P

progressivenerdgirl

Guest
You could scarcely have picked a broader term...

Which liberalism?
I think theological liberalism and political liberalism are just parallel developments (religion IS social ideology, social ideology IS religion). Though I should also mention Romanticism, which probably has a more direct impact post-18th century.

I can also see that we have different notions of religious epistemology. I believe the spirit allows us to see the truth of the Scripture as regards its supernatural elements, and show how they logically fit. It also allows us to experience the truth of the spiritual transformation in us. God may perform and reveal other miracles to other individuals. However, not being inspired ourselves, I do not think we have a right to call something a miracle.

There literally is no physically accessible way to claim something is supernatural. Superheroes are, epistemicly, a more reasonable conclusion than supernatural power. It is only with the aid of God's revelation that we recognize ANY miracles, and that we know which are from God and which are Satan's magic. On our own, in a normal situation, we could not rationally recongnize a miracle even if it occurred in front of us.

Of course, we should praise God for all good things, for all good things are of God. But to say, "God healed my cancer" just seems like an unfalsifiable statement which could never possibly have any sort of evidence for it external to revelatory influence.

I often take after Van Til, but here I am more in line with Clark.
 
Last edited:
P

progressivenerdgirl

Guest
well, to be clear, my comments weren't about marriage at all. they were regarding whether or not my dad is the boss of me, a 32 year old woman who has lived on her own for 14 years now.
And as the chief priest and king, a woman not married is still under the household of her father. That is how Christian government is conducted - family and elders. Now a man might abdicate by failure to perform his role or abusing his power, but under ordinary circumstances any unmarried woman is her father's ward; even if she doesn't live with him.
 
M

meggars

Guest

wellll...what are ya gonna do.....hardcore followers of christian patriarchy or the ''quiverfull'' movement are often fond of ignoring cultural context. usually they'll throw in a ''God doesn't change'' type statement trying to use that as the reason that the rules set in biblical times should all be just as unchanging in application and execution, despite the fact that thousands of years (and miles) have changed the context in which the rules are set. in a society where a woman DOES remain with her father or some other male relative until marriage, the exact execution of the rules as used in the bible may still apply. this isn't that society. i mean...if there was some kind of scripture reference that clearly stated that the father is in charge of the daughter's life until the day he or she dies or she gets married i might be able to accept that this idea was NOT simply built on cultural context (it's a BIG "might" still when there's nothing so straightforward as a ''thou shall'' type of command), but try as i might, all i can find are references relating to the husband being head of the household. i've even tried finding things i could twist or really stretch the interpretation on and i'm having some difficulty finding any references that can stand apart from the cultural biases of the day which state that daddy is boss until death or marriage. hey...what do i know. i'm just a girl ;)
 

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
A miracle is by definition a suspension of the natural laws which Govern the universe. Therefore there is no Natural event which can facilitate a Rational belief in the miraculous. The burden of Proof of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural does not rest on the witness of the event either. Because: There is no such thing as the science of observing supernatural events which do not occur. A person can make no positive claim pertaining to the absence of a supernatural event. I therefore cannot dictate to a witness what does or does not happen, or what they did or did not see. There is only for me to decide for myself what I will choose to believe. That is the beginning of Faith.




And as the chief priest and king, a woman not married is still under the household of her father. That is how Christian government is conducted - family and elders. Now a man might abdicate by failure to perform his role or abusing his power, but under ordinary circumstances any unmarried woman is her father's ward; even if she doesn't live with him.
I'm a little foggy as to what you mean by Ordinary Circumstances.

Is a Levirite Fraternal takeover in the case of Widows, which is Biblical, part of this view too?
 

Descyple

Senior Member
Jun 7, 2010
3,023
48
48
I like the idea of meeting women through church. In fact, one time as I was passing around the collection plate, I announced that the woman who puts in the most money, will win a date with me.

Within a week, my church went bankrupt!!!
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
''quiverfull'' movement are often fond of ignoring cultural context. usually they'll throw in a ''God doesn't change'' type statement trying to use that as the reason that the rules set in biblical times should all be just as unchanging in application and execution, despite the fact that thousands of years (and miles) have changed the context in which the rules are set. in a society where a woman DOES remain with her father or some other male relative until marriage, the exact execution of the rules as used in the bible may still apply. this isn't that society. i mean...if there was some kind of scripture reference that clearly stated that the father is in charge of the daughter's life until the day he or she dies or she gets married i might be able to accept that this idea was NOT simply built on cultural context (it's a BIG "might" still when there's nothing so straightforward as a ''thou shall'' type of command), but try as i might, all i can find are references relating to the husband being head of the household. i've even tried finding things i could twist or really stretch the interpretation on and i'm having some difficulty finding any references that can stand apart from the cultural biases of the day which state that daddy is boss until death or marriage. hey...what do i know. i'm just a girl ;)
While I Do concur with a DoubleWOW... regarding your rejection of progressive's theology. I am going to have to question yours. Meggars, I don't know what the definition of "quiverful movement" is but the fact of the matter is God doesn't change, he is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow... so in "clearing the table" of biblical principals on the basis that they are antiquated and have no bearing in modern times is ... FALSE. That particular reasoning and conclusion negates the omniscience of God... who knows the beginning to the end. I am sorry... but your understanding is poor if you can not percieve that God made provision for our social conduct for ALL TIME, thus there must be significance for OT laws and teaching. The entire content of scripture is beautifully woven together and harmonizes perfectly throughout. If approaching a particular subject you find a conflict... it is yours... not God's. I truly believe such conflicts arise to cause us to question and study and pursue understanding. So again, While i agree that the "father/rule principal has been overstated and warped in this thread. Simply dismissing the principal based on OT/antiquity is an error... God is not a man that he should lie... so it is our job to find out WHY we percieve a conflict and resolve it through study... not by dismissal.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
Wow. Total misunderstanding on your part. Meggars is talking about historical context. Of course the Bible transcends all of history but some things like Jewish customs, customs from those times, do not apply in this modern age. It has nothing to do with God never changing and has everything to do with historical context. Naturally, I agree that we need to test our beliefs against the Word but this isn't one of those.
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
Wow. Total misunderstanding on your part. Meggars is talking about historical context.
Wow tin tin... SO WAS I. I think YOU are misunderstanding. Historical Context?, LAST WEEK has a historical context.

>>>but some things like Jewish customs, customs from those times, do not apply in this modern age. <<<
IF or When, this is the case.... a believer had better be armed with an applicable scripture or scriptural principal to demonstrate why something is no t applicable... as apposed to dismissively sweeping it off the table with "historical context" excuse. While Meggars is correct in saying she is not under her Fathers authority... it isn't because the principal is "inapplicable today because of antiquated historical context.
It has nothing to do with God never changing and has everything to do with historical context.
Maybe reread your statement... all I can conclude is that your understanding is that God is SMALL, because the creator of the universe who does not change... must fudge a little... according to what you say... to accommodate our modern customs and historical age.
Naturally, I agree that we need to test our beliefs against the Word but this isn't one of those.
REALLY??? than your belief has no biblical basis.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
so are you saying that the following verses are still applicable?

Excerpts from leviticus 19
&#8216;Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

&#8220;&#8216;Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

23 &#8220;&#8216;When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden[c]; it must not be eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased.

26 &#8220;&#8216;Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

27 &#8220;&#8216;Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

I mean really are all of these still applicable? If so a lot of people aka most are in lots of trouble
 

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
Well, let Him who Has sinned cast the first stone. <Jesus explaining Context.

Man was not created for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man. <Jesus explaining Context.

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. - Psalm 51:16 <More Context

You have heard that it was said, &#8216;Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.&#8217; But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. <More Historical Context being explained.

No one is saying God is Fudging. But the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, indeed the God of the Bible, is not an abstraction of our Imagination which like a statue does not move or communicate or negotiate with His Creation. Indeed the Character of God does not change and He does not change His mind, like a man changes His mind. Yet, God relates to us, protects us, provides for us, gets frustrated with us, is patient with us, is forgiving of us, but He is not the sum of every experience we have with Him all the time.

It is a relationship.
 
P

progressivenerdgirl

Guest
For one, I like how you believe that just because something God commanded looks silly to you that that is ANY REASON WHATSOEVER not to obey it. Do you think it was silly when it was commanded of the Israelites? Would you have mocked the prophets for obeying it, because YOU don't understand the reason?

However, there is an answer to WHY these don't apply to us, and it is not because they are 'silly' or 'weird' to modern American carnal liberalism (which also finds marriage, personal responsibility and meat-eating 'weird', 'silly' and even 'abominable').

The biblical principle of not mixing seeds, whether of animals or crops in a single field, applies to us only indirectly. The basic judicial application is that we must be faithful to Jesus Christ, the promised Seed, who has come in history. In Him alone is true inheritance. But there is no application with respect to tribal boundaries. The tribes of Israel are gone forever. Thus, there is no application of this verse genetically. We are allowed to breed animals and plant various crops in the same field at the same time.
The other application of the principle of separation in this verse prohibited the wearing of mixed fiber garments. This applies to us today through baptism, for by baptism we have received our new clothing in Christ. This principle of separation still holds nationally, for it is covenantal, not tribal. It refers to the distinctions between priests and non-priests, between priestly nations and non-priestly nations. It refers to the distinction between Christendom and every other world system. But it has nothing to do with fabrics any longer.
- An Economic Commentary on Leviticus v.2
This same abrogation applies to the Sabbath, because it has a specific covenantal meaning and/or abrogation. People can not keep the Sabbath without doing harm, and as Jesus specifically said the Sabbath is for men's convenience, we thus are not required to IN THE CASE OF THE SABBATH. But we can not ignore God's laws unless they have these specific sorts of relations.

Those liberals who would ignore the laws against bestiality and homosexuality, or the rulership of the Father, have no cause not to abandon the other Commandments against murder and theft.
 
Last edited:
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
>>>>&#8220;&#8216;Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.<<<<
I think the verse actually says not to interweave fibers. I notice the jokes about poly-cotton blends... which in biblical context would be like blending wool and linen fibers into yarn to then weave fabric. What the verse is really saying is to not weave two fibers together..."warp wool" with" weave linen". THere is a very practical application for this pointing toward Christ and the believer's life
>>>>>The other application of the principle of separation in this verse prohibited the wearing of mixed fiber garments. This applies to us today through baptism, for by baptism we have received our new clothing in Christ.<<<<
Not only what Progresive has pointed out above, but if you "warp wool" to "weave linen", not only is the garment not "pure" (of one) fiber but the two fibers have such different characteristics the fabric will be ruined as the fibers will pull and shrink against the other. This is not only practical manufacture but points to the purity of CHristianity interms of the "new clothing" we get in Christ... so make sure the garment you are wearing is pure and holy BY GODS DEFINITION, as opposed to interwoven fibers of holy and worldly... as they will rend and tear at one anothe and ultimately RUIN your garment.. as your Garment was never truly Christ to begin with. KInda makes Checking fibercontent seem SOOOOOO much simpler than checking our life/theology/self content doesn't it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

progressivenerdgirl

Guest
It's also important to point out that not all Levitical commandments have civil sanctions associated with them.

Fathers DO have the right to use material, corporal and capital sanctions under certain circumstances (as the chief executive and judge of their families), but for many of the Laws breaking them is something that involved church discipline, morality and character. Likewise, while coveting a woman in your heart might be *like* adultery in your heart, it's something only Jesus and his Father can hold us accountable for. You don't stone people for lust.
 

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
I'm guessing Jesus was a Liberal because He specifically stated that He was the Lord of the Sabbath and then Gathered food on the Sabbath, which was forbidden to do in Exodus 16.
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
Well, let Him who Has sinned cast the first stone. <Jesus explaining Context.

Man was not created for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man. <Jesus explaining Context.

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. - Psalm 51:16 <More Context

You have heard that it was said, &#8216;Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.&#8217; But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. <More Historical Context being explained.

No one is saying God is Fudging. But the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, indeed the God of the Bible, is not an abstraction of our Imagination which like a statue does not move or communicate or negotiate with His Creation. Indeed the Character of God does not change and He does not change His mind, like a man changes His mind. Yet, God relates to us, protects us, provides for us, gets frustrated with us, is patient with us, is forgiving of us, but He is not the sum of every experience we have with Him all the time.

It is a relationship.
Relationship...Yep... And the BIBLE is our reference for everything about God (he makes the rules and sets the terms)... since He doesn't change... before trying to insert random verses into modern applications to shore up an argument about CONTEXT... you should probably make sure those verses have some contextual application to the argument. Otherwise it becomes a demonstration of how far from getting the point you are... disregard group consensus... what does the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD SAY?
 

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
Relationship...Yep... And the BIBLE is our reference for everything about God (he makes the rules and sets the terms)... since He doesn't change... before trying to insert random verses into modern applications to shore up an argument about CONTEXT... you should probably make sure those verses have some contextual application to the argument. Otherwise it becomes a demonstration of how far from getting the point you are... disregard group consensus... what does the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD SAY?
There is absolutely nothing Random about the verses I selected.

There is the Ten Commandments and there is the Mosiac Law.

The Mosiac Law was given to a specific people at a specific time, during a specific context.

Even Jesus says that God allowed Moses to write a law concerning Divorce because the people's hearts were hard.

Jesus cleared up so much of the purpose and intent of the Laws that were Given and since He is the Author of those Laws, he gave us two commandments. Love God with all of your heart soul mind and Strength and Love your neighbor as yourself.

I have no idea what you mean by the "WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD."