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

[MYRedeemedinJC]

I don't believe there is anything wrong with meet ing people whrough Church..

[Nautilus]

I don't believe there is anything wrong with meet ing people whrough Church..

Its not that meeting people through church is wrong, it was her whole explanation of the way to go about it.

[progressivenerdgirl]

When did I ever even imply that America used to be a Christian nation? Contra Rushdoony I think the USA was founded as a liberal theocracy by a group of East-Coast banksters and atheists, and immediately embarked on imperialist war mongering and statolatry.
If anything, my 'America' is the colonial government of Massachuttes. I have little love for the Constitution.

[Liamson]

When did I ever even imply that America used to be a Christian nation? Contra Rushdoony I think the USA was founded as a liberal theocracy by a group of East-Coast banksters and atheists, and immediately embarked on imperialist war mongering and statolatry.
If anything, my 'America' is the colonial government of Massachuttes. I have little love for the Constitution.

What are your sources?

[progressivenerdgirl]

Aside from the obvious fact that deists (Jefferson), Freemasons (Washington), liberals (Paine), Enlightenment fops (Hamilton) and money-printing shysters (Franklin) are prevalent at all levels of the revolution, and that their Humanist replacement-Christianity practically bleeds onto the pages of the Constitution and Declaration, there are many others. As an example (from a perspective rather more libertarian than my own):
Should We Celebrate the American Revolution?

[Liamson]

I believe you have grossly misunderstood the intent of this whole experiment. I suppose one could say that you have missed the forest for the Trees. Although, I agree with you on the particulars, the big picture and purpose of it all is where we differ.

Two Treatises of Government | John Locke - English philosopher

[progressivenerdgirl]

I've read Locke. And Filmer. Filmer had the better of him, and Locke's epistemology is nonsense. Also, Locke's ''Tabula Rasa' man is some more Enlightenment egalitarian gibberish.

[Liamson]

No one can arrest all development at the summary of One particular school of thought. But Filmer? Thats like saying that you like Hegelianism over Keirkegaards destruction of it.

I agree with you concerning the Clean Slate, but not from a Philosophical perspective but rather a Psychological one. Most people in modern culture use Epistemology to represent some butchered aspect of Randian Objectivity.

And if you must know I've always been a fan of the Categorical Imperative.

[meggars]

A woman is still under her fauther's authority until she is married

mmmm, not so. lol....i'm 32 and have been out of my parents house for 14 years now. an entirely self sufficient adult may be subject to their father's advice (though mine would never give his if it were unsolicited) but not their authority...it's a different day and age. We don't live at home until some poor sap finally takes us off our father's hands.

[progressivenerdgirl]

mmmm, not so. lol....i'm 32 and have been out of my parents house for 14 years now. an entirely self sufficient adult may be subject to their father's advice (though mine would never give his if it were unsolicited) but not their authority...it's a different day and age. We don't live at home until some poor sap finally takes us off our father's hands.

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.

[jimmydiggs]

The father is king, priest and prophet for his family; and his authority does not expire with a label.

[Ugly]

Who said it was wrong meeting people in church or through family?

[JGPS]

It could be, but I find no scripture to support that and it doesn't negate the fact that their arranged marriage was a wreck. There are marriages out there where spouses are separated for long periods of time (i.e. military families, etc.) and their marriages remain strong.

That's fairly said. All I meant was that that the type of familial love I was talking about deals with the love that grows from being with each other and sharing responsabilities wouldn't exist in that case.

Oddly, most of the married women who have discussed this issue with me have indicated that it had little to do with their libidos, but rather their lack of knowledge of intimacy/their own bodies, medical conditions and/or the selfishness of a husband who sought only to please himself. I don't entirely disagree with your last paragraph and appreciate that you have considered this, but I still think that it's quite a gamble to throw two strangers together and think the two of them will have what it takes to last a lifetime. Marriage is tough enough as it is.

Medical conditions are of course a valid reason. But your first and last reason are inexorably linked. It is his job for learn her body so she knows what works for her, but very often guys have a problem with that for one reason or another. Sometimes it is outright selfishness, but even decent guys can have issues learning what works for her if they're too timid or not focused enough. Of course she has to communicate what she likes and doesn't like too, and some women have a very hard time doing that...

[JGPS]

[quote=progressivenerdgirl;880434]

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.

That's rare, nice to see some fellow postmillenialits out there

[JGPS]

"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.

No... That is the cult of fideism, and fideism only. Faith by definition is no more or less than a measure confidence in an individual or entity. It may be for a good reason or not, but it is not by definition for no reason. Other than in fideism of course... If Christ has brought me to where I am in life, and lead me each way never failing, and says he will continue to lead me until I enter His Kingdom, my faith is not irrational. I do not see the Kingdom now, but my confidence in it is well and reasonably placed.

[Liamson]

No... That is the cult of fideism, and fideism only. Faith by definition is no more or less than a measure confidence in an individual or entity. It may be for a good reason or not, but it is not by definition for no reason. Other than in fideism of course... If Christ has brought me to where I am in life, and lead me each way never failing, and says he will continue to lead me until I enter His Kingdom, my faith is not irrational. I do not see the Kingdom now, but my confidence in it is well and reasonably placed.

Confidence in Pure Expectation is Rational. (True or False)

Certainty of things which cannot be Seen is Rational. (True or False)

A miracle is a suspension of the Natural Laws which Govern the Universe. ie Shadrach Mishach and Abednego did not experience the Physics or Chemistry Laws which govern fire. Neither Did Moses and the Isrealites Experience the effects of Gravity upon Water.

A Rational person has no expectation of parting water or Entering a Furnace. Only God is capable of performing the Miraculous.

It is Reasonable to believe that I will not survive any Naturally Fatal event without supernatural intervention.

Is it Rational to expect supernatural intervention on my behalf?

[Delejayn]

Lol @ the comment about women not being able to speak in church. When you read the word it's important to ask God to reveal the confusing and hidden things because that scripture shouldn't be taken in it's literal sense. Paul also mentioned that Women should prophesy and pray in church and I would think that would take some verbal communication of some sort.

Proverbs 3:5 is so important.

There is nothing wrong with meeting people in church. There is also nothing wrong with "courting". Especially if you are doing that while praying and asking God to reveal if this woman/man is the one that he has for you. Thank God that he doesn't view trivial things like we do. His word made not clear about courting but if we are doing his will and not disobeying his law then there is nothing wrong with the courting stage. Getting to know someone away from their family is very important because when you begin your family you need to know if said person can operate as an individual and a pair and not just a family unit..Just my two cents though.. God Bless and Seek God for the perfect answer.

[progressivenerdgirl]

Delejayn, while recognizing that man books in the Scripture are different genres, there is plenty in the Bible that is literal and direct commands. Romans is not ambiguous as regards the silence of women or the double-Predestination of Christ's people and sinners; no matter how much the liberals like to push it around.

[Stuey]

Delejayn, while recognizing that man books in the Scripture are different genres, there is plenty in the Bible that is literal and direct commands. Romans is not ambiguous as regards the silence of women or the double-Predestination of Christ's people and sinners; no matter how much the liberals like to push it around.

Do you mean corinthians?

I do have a question for you... might split this one into another thread in a bit. But how do you interpret this passage from Corinthians?

2 Now I praise you[a] because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman,[b] and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 So if a woman’s head[c] is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.

[progressivenerdgirl]

Do you mean corinthians?

I do have a question for you... might split this one into another thread in a bit. But how do you interpret this passage from Corinthians?

2 Now I praise you[a] because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman,[b] and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 So if a woman’s head[c] is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.

Romans in the one case, but yes Corinthians as far as the silence of women in the church.
I believe that a select group of women in this case would prophesie outside of the church. I don't know that such women still exist, but if they did their head should be covered. I do not accept the view that it means all women should wear hats, as some have suggested.