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.

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
I missed that... what on earth??? I do not see any biblical support for that Progressive. Why on earth would you want to make marriage harder financially than it is to start with?

I feel that beliefs like this - if held to the point of it 'being the one right way to do things' - hard to explain what I mean. Is simply the traditions of man. If it is attached to the church then it is adding to what the bible says in my opinion.

You might find something in the old testament... but in the New Testament there is I believe, nothing, and we are under grace, not law.
 
P

progressivenerdgirl

Guest
JGPS:
Fideism itself is quite cancerous to real faith. Real faith is based on what the Lord has done, because he first loved us and all that. In the end Fideism asks you to ignore what the lord has done and just believe anyway for no reason...
I agree. The deliberate irrationalism of many modern churches is disturbing.

Julianna:
If love is important in the relationship between Christ (the Bridegroom) and His Bride, after which godly marriages are to be modeled, how could it possibly not be important in marriages between godly husbands/wives as well?
And what reason have you to believe that the essentially modern notion of romantic love and its role in relationships has anything to do with agape? In fact, it's hard to find many examples of the Greek word 'agape' ever used in that sense. The Greeks would tend to call romantic love infatuation or passion.

Agape has been used to mean 'treating prisoners with respect', are we to believe we are to be in love with prisoners?

Your entire NOTION of modern romantic love as anything more than an exceptional occurance is the product of literature, not reality.

Stuey:
I missed that... what on earth??? I do not see any biblical support for that Progressive. Why on earth would you want to make marriage harder financially than it is to start with?
Exodus 22:16-17 mentions it
"If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." The virgin in this case is both unmarried and unbetrothed (i.e., unengaged). Since her behavior does not involve the breaking of a covenantal vow her punishment does not merit the death penalty.
Sarah's suitor had to do seven years of indentured servitude because he could not pay her father. But in just this example, how could there be a penalty for those who seduce women if there was not an expected bride-price to begin with?
 
Last edited:

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
Hmmm... old testament law. Sorry but I don't interpret that as meaning we should pay a bride price.

To take the most annoying example we don't stone people if they commit adultery. Nor do people have to wear clothing made out of one material or other such stuff. Generally if things are super important in the Old testament to the way we live now, they are repeated in the New Testament. We are under grace not the law.

I can see that you could view this as important though. If for you it is important... then that is something for your future husband to deal with I guess. But I do not believe you should be enforcing these views on other Christians. It is quite legalistic if you seek to, though I'm not sure whether you do or not.
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
Hmmm... old testament law.
To take the most annoying example we don't stone people if they commit adultery. Nor do people have to wear clothing made out of one material or other such stuff. Generally if things are super important in the Old testament to the way we live now, they are repeated in the New Testament. We are under grace not the law.


Stuey... the bride price is still in effect today in a modified way. It is the engagement ring... a diamond... the most valuable stone... offered as a token at proposal... the ring should be equal to at least 2 months income of the suitor... or more as he values and desires the woman. The engagement ring tradition is born out of the bride price custom in the OT. The OT is very valuable for learning the context and origin of the NT. Wearing a certain kind of material has very specific meaning... it is not frivality... or useless for today. Can you imagin if people DID get stoned for committing adultery??? Sure would put marriage in the reverential position God intended it to be... would entirely dispose of the confusion and chaos around us today?
 
Jul 25, 2012
1,904
24
0
I don't like the people in church, nor do I like the people in my family or those hanging around the people I hate. Well, hate is too much of a strong word to use to describe how I feel toward the people who "love" me.
 
P

progressivenerdgirl

Guest
Hmmm... old testament law.
To take the most annoying example we don't stone people if they commit adultery. Nor do people have to wear clothing made out of one material or other such stuff. Generally if things are super important in the Old testament to the way we live now, they are repeated in the New Testament. We are under grace not the law.


Stuey... the bride price is still in effect today in a modified way. It is the engagement ring... a diamond... the most valuable stone... offered as a token at proposal... the ring should be equal to at least 2 months income of the suitor... or more as he values and desires the woman. The engagement ring tradition is born out of the bride price custom in the OT. The OT is very valuable for learning the context and origin of the NT. Wearing a certain kind of material has very specific meaning... it is not frivality... or useless for today. Can you imagin if people DID get stoned for committing adultery??? Sure would put marriage in the reverential position God intended it to be... would entirely dispose of the confusion and chaos around us today?
I think the bride price should be properly paid to the father, though. An engagement ring is something similar - proof of commitment and means - but the father is the head of household, and as a sign that the covenant between his daughter and her husband creates a new household a payment to him is a rightful part of it.

And we are under the Law, Stuey.
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
I think the bride price should be properly paid to the father, though. An engagement ring is something similar - proof of commitment and means - but the father is the head of household, and as a sign that the covenant between his daughter and her husband creates a new household a payment to him is a rightful part of it.

And we are under the Law, Stuey.
No Progressive, we are not under the law. I am impressed by how well educated you are in what the bible says, your understanding of order, authority, marriage... it is very unusual for a young person today. Some of your theology is needing correction... I think it will come soon enough. The bride price is not paid to the father... because it does imply "doing commerce" and human trafficking is frowned today. The purpose of OT bride price was to "shadow" that Jesus paid a bride price to the father... for his bride. Jesus did not pay money or work but paid with his LIFE to purchase his bride. Bought with a price.. 1 cor. 6:20 or 7:23.
 

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
You do mean the law of grace right?

23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28





This is interesting - haha just found it. Engagement ring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engagement bands began in Ancient Egypt as the circle was used to symbolize a never ending cycle and the space in it as a gateway. Betrothal rings were used during Roman times, but weren't generally revived in the Western world until the 13th century.[1] Roman men gave engagement rings that included a small key. Romantics believe that the carved key was a symbolic key to protect and cherish the husband's heart. However, the key most likely stood for the unlocking of wealth.[citation needed]
Rings are placed on the fourth finger on the left hand, because Ancient Greeks believed that it contained a vein that led to the heart (vena amoris). Romans believed the ring to be a symbol for ownership rather than love. It meant that the husband would claim his wife. In second century B.C.E., the Roman bride was given two rings, a gold one which she wore in public, and one made of iron, which she could wear at home while doing house chores.[2]


There is an interesting section on the rings becoming security for women - in the last century anyway.

Btw diamonds only started to be offered really late... like a few articles I've read have said about 1477 was the first recorded example.
 
Last edited:
P

progressivenerdgirl

Guest
No Progressive, we are not under the law. I am impressed by how well educated you are in what the bible says, your understanding of order, authority, marriage... it is very unusual for a young person today. Some of your theology is needing correction... I think it will come soon enough. The bride price is not paid to the father... because it does imply "doing commerce" and human trafficking is frowned today. The purpose of OT bride price was to "shadow" that Jesus paid a bride price to the father... for his bride. Jesus did not pay money or work but paid with his LIFE to purchase his bride. Bought with a price.. 1 cor. 6:20 or 7:23.
Um, why should we refrain from things because moderns frown on it? Aside from pure expedience that doesn't mean a dang thing to me.

And I can see we differ here. I am very much a Dominionist in my theonomy, and a postmillenial in my eschatology.

Stuey:
Btw diamonds only started to be offered really late... like a few articles I've read have said about 1477 was the first recorded example.
Diamonds used to be extraordinarily expensive. It would be like getting your wife a two-million dollar ring. If it wasn't for the criminal South African gang that controls the diamond cartels (DeBeers) they would be a lot cheaper these days, too.
 

Photoss

Senior Member
Sep 15, 2012
213
10
0
One alternative, supposedly Christian, is courtship. In reality, courtship is a product of the caricatured formality of medieval political institutions. Its elaborate rules, rituals can to push sexual liasons underground due to the frustration of the absurd difficulties of getting to see someone you might have married five years ago. Add to that the totally alien nature of such customs and the encouragement it gives to parental tyranny and this will not only drive kids away from legitimate marriage but also their family and religion.
Ok, so I know I'm late to the party, and this thread is already seven pages long, but I just wanted to say that I'm in a christian courtship relationship right now, and it is absolutely nothing like what you described; I'm sorry you/your friends had such poor experiences.
 
Last edited:
T

Tintin

Guest
So... Progressive, I guess your avatar isn't based on the Deathly Hallows but rather on the Cross and the Trinity?
Also, no women speaking in church? That's not what that part of the Bible is talking about. Historical context is key. Who was the audience? What was the situation? These are all important. God's Word is infallible BUT context is important in understanding any text, especially one written and compiled so long ago.
 

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
JGPS:

I agree. The deliberate irrationalism of many modern churches is disturbing.

"By definition FAITH is Irrational, but it seems you prefer some anachronistic view. If I am certain of what I hope for and sure of what I do not see, I am being irrational.

And what reason have you to believe that the essentially modern notion of romantic love and its role in relationships has anything to do with agape? In fact, it's hard to find many examples of the Greek word 'agape' ever used in that sense. The Greeks would tend to call romantic love infatuation or passion.


Agape has been used to mean 'treating prisoners with respect', are we to believe we are to be in love with prisoners?

Since when is such a narrow example of the use of a word something to hang your argument on. If it was out of Agape that God sent His only Son to die for our sins, should I draw a distinction between the Love that a Husband who lays down his life for his wife, or is that confined to acute Greek definitions too.

You keep bringing up Romantic Notions but, no one here is talking about Romance, Infatuation or Passion.

What I find to be lacking in your "Prisoners Treatment" is the practical example that remotely compares to what she is talking about.


Your entire NOTION of modern romantic love as anything more than an exceptional occurrence is the product of literature, not reality.

And what literature would you be talking about? With no sources I find your argument baseless and irrelevant.


And I can see we differ here. I am very much a Dominionist in my theonomy, and a postmillenial in my eschatology.

This explains everything to me. You are a Dominionist/Calvinist/Reconstroctionist Which is why you see anyone who disagrees with you as "Modern" because your brand of Christianity views the start of America as through the rose colored lens of reminiscing about the "good ol days" When the US of A was a Christian Nation.

I do not share any of your perspectives. And I find your use of the term "Modern" to describe any concept which is alien to you, uneducated and narrow.
 
J

Jullianna

Guest
JGPS:

I agree. The deliberate irrationalism of many modern churches is disturbing.

Julianna:

And what reason have you to believe that the essentially modern notion of romantic love and its role in relationships has anything to do with agape? In fact, it's hard to find many examples of the Greek word 'agape' ever used in that sense. The Greeks would tend to call romantic love infatuation or passion.

Agape has been used to mean 'treating prisoners with respect', are we to believe we are to be in love with prisoners?

Your entire NOTION of modern romantic love as anything more than an exceptional occurance is the product of literature, not reality.

Stuey:

Exodus 22:16-17 mentions it

Sarah's suitor had to do seven years of indentured servitude because he could not pay her father. But in just this example, how could there be a penalty for those who seduce women if there was not an expected bride-price to begin with?
Are you saying that you don't think the relationship between Christ and His Bride is in any way to be an example of marriage, even though men are instructed to love their wives as Christ loves the Church?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Jullianna

Guest
Please disregard my question. I have to be honest and say that I've actually lost interest in the topic and don't want to have to post again later. :) I'm slightly distracted by stomach flu. haha
 
D

djness

Guest
I wonder how many of the opinions expressed here have been lived rather then just hoped for you know, not just ideally set on paper ....suppose that could be said for any of these threads though....I just wonder how many of you have followed the path of what you think and believe into real life and not just made good impressions in forums.

Because when you start to learn things about people on here [you know people talk] the words and ideals don't line up.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
I'm not sure that I understand why that requires you being alone. You can eat with others, and yet have a deep discussion; you can walk with others and carry on separate conversations. :/
There is still added pressure when in a group and it is far harder to get into serious one on one conversations in a group. I support alone time as well Youre going to be alone a lot after marriage, better hope you can stand them in that sort of environment beforehand.
 
D

djness

Guest
There is still added pressure when in a group and it is far harder to get into serious one on one conversations in a group. I support alone time as well Youre going to be alone a lot after marriage, better hope you can stand them in that sort of environment beforehand.
I knew a man and women who dated all throughout college but kept themselves for marriage, they had made an agreement to only be in public places so there was never any doubt as to purity.
However you could be alone with the person in a public place like a park bench but still have people all around, or a college cafeteria at a table. I would agree with nautilus to an extent, you need to know if you can stand being alone with them, but still with certain barriers.
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
I knew a man and women who dated all throughout college but kept themselves for marriage, they had made an agreement to only be in public places so there was never any doubt as to purity.
However you could be alone with the person in a public place like a park bench but still have people all around, or a college cafeteria at a table. I would agree with nautilus to an extent, you need to know if you can stand being alone with them, but still with certain barriers.
Isn't the purpose of purity to honor God and each other? I am 100% for that... but it seems there are quite a lot of people who are more concerned about "public appropriateness" for the benefit of the public. Using the example of the "couple scenario" above, two people could put on a great public show while at the same time meeting in "secret".... the public might be fooled... but God isn't. Thus, I don't really see any practical purpose for setting "rules" about how, when and where to court, EXCEPT the woman is under her father's roof and authority, then he surely can make the rules. When the woman is NOT under her Father's roof, she is under the FATHER IN HEAVEN's authority.... whether recognizing it or not. 2 people NEVER go too far because "it just happened".... sex doesn't "just happen" and God isn't fooled by that absurd "cover story" either.
 
D

djness

Guest
Isn't the purpose of purity to honor God and each other? I am 100% for that... but it seems there are quite a lot of people who are more concerned about "public appropriateness" for the benefit of the public. Using the example of the "couple scenario" above, two people could put on a great public show while at the same time meeting in "secret".... the public might be fooled... but God isn't. Thus, I don't really see any practical purpose for setting "rules" about how, when and where to court, EXCEPT the woman is under her father's roof and authority, then he surely can make the rules. When the woman is NOT under her Father's roof, she is under the FATHER IN HEAVEN's authority.... whether recognizing it or not. 2 people NEVER go too far because "it just happened".... sex doesn't "just happen" and God isn't fooled by that absurd "cover story" either.
Sure...but still less likely to happen in public unless you shed your christianity for exhibitionism.
 

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
This explains everything to me. You are a Dominionist/Calvinist/Reconstroctionist Which is why you see anyone who disagrees with you as "Modern" because your brand of Christianity views the start of America as through the rose colored lens of reminiscing about the "good ol days" When the US of A was a Christian Nation.

I do not share any of your perspectives. And I find your use of the term "Modern" to describe any concept which is alien to you, uneducated and narrow.
Cmon buddy, less judgement more love. People have no choice over the church they are raised in. I am thankful that her Dad has raised her to be a Christian, and one who loves Jesus. You don't have to agree with the theology but you do have to love her!