I have to disagree just a little bit. I agree that Jesus shouldn't be the only thing. There has to be chemistry. Otherwise, you're just two friends at best fooling each other (I know husbands and wives are supposed to be best friends, but I think you get what I'm saying). If one person loves being outdoors while the other likes being a hermit, I would think there would be some issues. But as far as physical appearances, I personally believe they don't matter, as most of the time, we can't control them. Now we're not to be sitting on the couch watching daytime tv eating a bag of chips every day, but other than that I think Jesus fits all the criteria. Because if it's meant to be, everything else will come with Him.
I want someone with purple skin
- Thread starter PopClick
- 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.
Those are the kinds of things I was alluding to. You need to be in the "same universe of interests" though your interests may differ. Two people who are polar opposites may have a really hard time, because in order to compromise on what to do, or watch, or whatever together, they have to settle on something NEITHER of them like. That can be burdensome, in bonding, I think. Not an absolute rule, by any means. But a general one.
Yeah, I can see that. I just think that some Christians fall into the trap of "Oh that person is a Christian, is really nice, fair enough, we better get hitched before I become an old maid!" I knew a woman who did this. I just think there should be some caution in using Jesus as the primarily source of consideration, because anyone can have Jesus, that invites Him in, but not everyone is a good match. For women starting to hit 30, if they are familiar with biology and desire to have children, that might create a bit of a panic to settle down, and they think "eh, he's nice enough, and he loves Jesus."
I was intent on settling down with a guy one time, but he stopped calling me under the pressure of the guardians I was living with - and, get this, he didn't even tell me. He lived in another state; it was an online meeting kind of thing. I don't know where he is now in his beliefs, but he become VERY dogmatic, and highly exclusive in his beliefs.
Had somehow I ended up with him, I don't think it would've been a good match, assuming I progressed the same spiritually. And, like you're saying here about looks not mattering... I was not attracted to this man. We met, hugged, and stuff, but I felt nothing chemistry wise. I just know that relationship would've been a disaster, but I was settling on the "he's got Jesus, and a really sweet guy." But even that is not enough. I am very thankful he was not the diligent kind that tried to keep in touch with me regardless.
And you are right though - accidents can happen, and someone can "lose" the looks that were attractive. But if you had that chemistry, chemistry is more than the physical attraction - it's like a certain understanding that you have of each other that NO ONE ELSE sees or understands. A very imtimate mingling of the souls, if you will.
Yeah, I can see that. I just think that some Christians fall into the trap of "Oh that person is a Christian, is really nice, fair enough, we better get hitched before I become an old maid!" I knew a woman who did this. I just think there should be some caution in using Jesus as the primarily source of consideration, because anyone can have Jesus, that invites Him in, but not everyone is a good match. For women starting to hit 30, if they are familiar with biology and desire to have children, that might create a bit of a panic to settle down, and they think "eh, he's nice enough, and he loves Jesus."
I was intent on settling down with a guy one time, but he stopped calling me under the pressure of the guardians I was living with - and, get this, he didn't even tell me. He lived in another state; it was an online meeting kind of thing. I don't know where he is now in his beliefs, but he become VERY dogmatic, and highly exclusive in his beliefs.
Had somehow I ended up with him, I don't think it would've been a good match, assuming I progressed the same spiritually. And, like you're saying here about looks not mattering... I was not attracted to this man. We met, hugged, and stuff, but I felt nothing chemistry wise. I just know that relationship would've been a disaster, but I was settling on the "he's got Jesus, and a really sweet guy." But even that is not enough. I am very thankful he was not the diligent kind that tried to keep in touch with me regardless.
And you are right though - accidents can happen, and someone can "lose" the looks that were attractive. But if you had that chemistry, chemistry is more than the physical attraction - it's like a certain understanding that you have of each other that NO ONE ELSE sees or understands. A very imtimate mingling of the souls, if you will.
Last edited:
lol That's more of an attitude of humility and willingness to learn, than something that can be taught. It's a matter of the heart, and honestly, one thing that drew us to each other was the fact we could disagree civilly and have an honest (address what is put on the table, don't divert, etc) discussion about things. And not just religion, but anything.
I was to the severity as some others here in terms of adversary, and seeing it in others, I decided "I don't want to be like that."
"Well, now that I reflect on it, I AM like that, and I need to make a change." So I did. Didn't care to be one of the most obvious of hypocrites. I still bump heads, I mean, no one holds an opinion they think is wrong. But it's not something you can teach folks, I'm coming to learn. Like Solomon said "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults." So, I'm trying to master that concept.
I was to the severity as some others here in terms of adversary, and seeing it in others, I decided "I don't want to be like that."
"Well, now that I reflect on it, I AM like that, and I need to make a change." So I did. Didn't care to be one of the most obvious of hypocrites. I still bump heads, I mean, no one holds an opinion they think is wrong. But it's not something you can teach folks, I'm coming to learn. Like Solomon said "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults." So, I'm trying to master that concept.
Last edited:
That's the problem with certainty, regardless of the doctrine in question. It closes one's ears, and oftentimes, one with ears that are closed doesn't hear an opposing argument clear enough to counter it and often will get frustrated - frustration can lead to insults.
Certainty removes humility because humility is about admitting you're wrong. Many Christians have their all their little doctrinal ducks in a row, and certain of the conclusions they drew - which more often than not, fosters pride. And pride fosters bigotry.
So, imo, it is best to remain open to being wrong, even about fundamental and orthodox doctrines. And it is my opinion that all the "side doctrines," and all the technicalities about Jesus shouldn't divide us, and ultimately doesn't matter. The Blood is all that truly matters, at the heart of Christianity. Jesus is in other religions and schools of thought, but it is His Blood and function of that Blood that makes up our faith and distinguishes our understanding of Him from others'.
Yet, some will say "You only need this to be saved" and when you pressure why understanding Creationism or understanding free will/predestination, etc is so imperative, they're caught - because they can't answer why one is saved solely by the Blood, and THEN say they MUST believe and confess certain tenets, and follow certain rules, of the Bible. They MUST then behave in a certain fashion. And is that in and of itself not one of the most adversarial topics?
So there are lots of good explanations for different doctrines, whatever it may be, however I think some are stronger than others. But if one is not humble to the point of being called wrong about their interpretation (the Pharisees weren't), and consider being wrong, then that person is likely not going to be much for constructive conversation and likely to throw insults when they can't answer something, or feel the debater is offending what they believe is a sacred/spiritual understanding of Scripture.
Certainty removes humility because humility is about admitting you're wrong. Many Christians have their all their little doctrinal ducks in a row, and certain of the conclusions they drew - which more often than not, fosters pride. And pride fosters bigotry.
So, imo, it is best to remain open to being wrong, even about fundamental and orthodox doctrines. And it is my opinion that all the "side doctrines," and all the technicalities about Jesus shouldn't divide us, and ultimately doesn't matter. The Blood is all that truly matters, at the heart of Christianity. Jesus is in other religions and schools of thought, but it is His Blood and function of that Blood that makes up our faith and distinguishes our understanding of Him from others'.
Yet, some will say "You only need this to be saved" and when you pressure why understanding Creationism or understanding free will/predestination, etc is so imperative, they're caught - because they can't answer why one is saved solely by the Blood, and THEN say they MUST believe and confess certain tenets, and follow certain rules, of the Bible. They MUST then behave in a certain fashion. And is that in and of itself not one of the most adversarial topics?
So there are lots of good explanations for different doctrines, whatever it may be, however I think some are stronger than others. But if one is not humble to the point of being called wrong about their interpretation (the Pharisees weren't), and consider being wrong, then that person is likely not going to be much for constructive conversation and likely to throw insults when they can't answer something, or feel the debater is offending what they believe is a sacred/spiritual understanding of Scripture.
Last edited:
jamie, you make a fabulous point. while i'm sure there is a great intellect whom has already spoken on this subject, i'll simply say this...anyone who knows me even a little bit, knows that i am, above all things, annoyingly, inexhaustibly, endlessly fascinated by (almost) everything.
and if there is one thing i've failed to understand is how anyone can really be sure of almost anything. because assurance and certainty are the enemies of curiosity, learning, and growth. because at the end of the day, the only thing i am really sure of is that God is my Lord, my Savior, and the Word is my absolute compass.
everything else is negotiable.
and if there is one thing i've failed to understand is how anyone can really be sure of almost anything. because assurance and certainty are the enemies of curiosity, learning, and growth. because at the end of the day, the only thing i am really sure of is that God is my Lord, my Savior, and the Word is my absolute compass.
everything else is negotiable.
Yes! Beautifully said. The thing about dogmatic certainty is that, imo, it usually hardens the heart. When one becomes so certain of a doctrine, and ingrains it into their hearts, then even God won't be able to change that person's mind. Because they are so certain about how He manifests and communicates, etc, they won't recognize Him when He does speak to them.
That's pretty much where I am. And that's where every believer starts - but many get so tangled in the dogma that they lose sight of the simplicity of the Gospel. And parroting the Gospel doesn't mean you understand it... but God can use any voice He wishes. Phil 1:17-18
Oh and gyspygirl, even science is starting to suggest there are no absolutes, though for a long time we've had certain laws that we assumed the universe worked by, absolutely. String theory. Pretty new, just gained popularity mid-20th century.
The Official String Theory Web Site
The Official String Theory Web Site
G
'I want someone with purple skin'
If I had purple skin --- would you want me?
Of course, not -- not 'automatically', at least.
Why? Because, there are other things that are also important.
Is making that statement an insult to those who do not have purple skin?
Of course not! Why? Because, it is only stating a preference. It is not judging those who do not have that characteristic.
If I had purple skin --- would you want me?
Of course, not -- not 'automatically', at least.
Why? Because, there are other things that are also important.
Is making that statement an insult to those who do not have purple skin?
Of course not! Why? Because, it is only stating a preference. It is not judging those who do not have that characteristic.
G
If I say that this statement "raises the interest level" -- because I am interested in finding a woman who does not want to have children -- does my statement insult those women who do want to have children? ( which is - "most of them" )
Of course not! It is only a preference. It is not judging those who do not have that characteristic. It is only focusing on those that do.
Of course not! It is only a preference. It is not judging those who do not have that characteristic. It is only focusing on those that do.
I wish I had the time to write a more detailed reply...
In my own life, I've had some people who rejected me because I look Asian.
I've also had other people who wanted to talk to me because I look Asian.
It doesn't matter all that much to me UNLESS, for the good or the bad, the sole is is that I look Asian. If all they focus on is that and have no regards for who I am as a person or what my unique history is, then yeah, I get pretty upset.
I have a childhood best friend who is a redhead, and I'm sure she often feels more like a Hair Color than a person, because that's how people treat her. When her kids were born, all people wanted to know was if they had red hair (they don't.)
Ironically, when we were in grade school, we were at our friend X's house together. X's grandfather saw my red-haired friend and said cheerfully, "With the bright red hair, you must be (a race he approved of)!" He was very friendly to her. He completely ignored me and gave me snarling looks now and then. He later told my friend's parents, "Why do you have a $#@! Asian in your house?" because Asians are an ethic group he didn't approve of.
Anyway... I found it interesting. He made all his judgments solely on the way we looked, and zeroed our physical features as his sole reason for acceptance or rejection.
In my own life, I've had some people who rejected me because I look Asian.
I've also had other people who wanted to talk to me because I look Asian.
It doesn't matter all that much to me UNLESS, for the good or the bad, the sole is is that I look Asian. If all they focus on is that and have no regards for who I am as a person or what my unique history is, then yeah, I get pretty upset.
I have a childhood best friend who is a redhead, and I'm sure she often feels more like a Hair Color than a person, because that's how people treat her. When her kids were born, all people wanted to know was if they had red hair (they don't.)
Ironically, when we were in grade school, we were at our friend X's house together. X's grandfather saw my red-haired friend and said cheerfully, "With the bright red hair, you must be (a race he approved of)!" He was very friendly to her. He completely ignored me and gave me snarling looks now and then. He later told my friend's parents, "Why do you have a $#@! Asian in your house?" because Asians are an ethic group he didn't approve of.
Anyway... I found it interesting. He made all his judgments solely on the way we looked, and zeroed our physical features as his sole reason for acceptance or rejection.
Of course we can't be absolutely certain that there are no absolutes because that is an absolute. So there absolutely must be some absolutes. The problem is pride, not conviction or certainty.
My conviction is there are absolutely no people with naturally purple skin. At least not human ones (hypothetical alien races may be different). Though I could be wrong about that.
My conviction is there are absolutely no people with naturally purple skin. At least not human ones (hypothetical alien races may be different). Though I could be wrong about that.
I do not mean that statement is "absolutely" true, only that statement leaves open possibilities for anything to be true. Logically, you could not say this, but as I stated elsewhere, we are all too eager to utlize logic until we can't use it in a certain doctrine.
And the thing is, if we're going to talk about faith and Scripture, why is secular logic so demanded? Because we admit ourselves that certain things are exempt because of God's power or intervention, and as far as unbelievers are concerned, that means the laws are alterable, not fixed, therefore not absolute by our definition.
Take miracles for example. If you believed in them, you could not say that when someone dies, they are absolutely dead, because some have been raised back to life, by prophet or Jesus. "Well God did it." Well, yeah, but absolute means unalterable, and in no way would we ever observe different. Those who refuse the supernaturally of the Bible would be more consistent in stating they believe in absolute truth than a Fundamental Christian, ironically, because to believe in the supernatural events is to believe in certain laws being altered, we observing them, which then they are no longer absolute - by our own observation.
And I meant was that certainty usually leads to pride, because it removes from one's mind the possibity they need to be corrected about [doctrine here]. The people in Jesus' day had it all worked out. The Messiah will come, set up a military army, and deliever them. When He was arrested and therefore wasn't going to, they turned on Him because "oh, well he's not the Messiah cause He hasn't followed our little good guy handbook." But that's my intrepretation, also the interpretation of scholars far more learned than I.
But when you read Jesus throwing Scriptures at people, you could assume He does so because they misunderstood them, particularly Scriptures about Himself. I personally think it's a little arrogant of us to assume we need no correction on our understanding of Scripture or doctrine and that is what certainty is, what I mean by it. Do we really think we are any better than the Apostles, who also needed to be retrained in reading Scripture?
And I don't want to start a debate about inerrancy, church doctrine, etc, I only mean to show that in principle, Scripture seems to teach there is always more to learn, even about the most basic, fundamental things we've made up our minds about.
Then you're not of the certainty that I speak of, if you think there's a possibility you are in error.
And the thing is, if we're going to talk about faith and Scripture, why is secular logic so demanded? Because we admit ourselves that certain things are exempt because of God's power or intervention, and as far as unbelievers are concerned, that means the laws are alterable, not fixed, therefore not absolute by our definition.
Take miracles for example. If you believed in them, you could not say that when someone dies, they are absolutely dead, because some have been raised back to life, by prophet or Jesus. "Well God did it." Well, yeah, but absolute means unalterable, and in no way would we ever observe different. Those who refuse the supernaturally of the Bible would be more consistent in stating they believe in absolute truth than a Fundamental Christian, ironically, because to believe in the supernatural events is to believe in certain laws being altered, we observing them, which then they are no longer absolute - by our own observation.
And I meant was that certainty usually leads to pride, because it removes from one's mind the possibity they need to be corrected about [doctrine here]. The people in Jesus' day had it all worked out. The Messiah will come, set up a military army, and deliever them. When He was arrested and therefore wasn't going to, they turned on Him because "oh, well he's not the Messiah cause He hasn't followed our little good guy handbook." But that's my intrepretation, also the interpretation of scholars far more learned than I.
But when you read Jesus throwing Scriptures at people, you could assume He does so because they misunderstood them, particularly Scriptures about Himself. I personally think it's a little arrogant of us to assume we need no correction on our understanding of Scripture or doctrine and that is what certainty is, what I mean by it. Do we really think we are any better than the Apostles, who also needed to be retrained in reading Scripture?
And I don't want to start a debate about inerrancy, church doctrine, etc, I only mean to show that in principle, Scripture seems to teach there is always more to learn, even about the most basic, fundamental things we've made up our minds about.
Then you're not of the certainty that I speak of, if you think there's a possibility you are in error.
Last edited:
'I want someone with purple skin'
If I had purple skin --- would you want me?
Of course, not -- not 'automatically', at least.
Why? Because, there are other things that are also important.
Is making that statement an insult to those who do not have purple skin?
Of course not! Why? Because, it is only stating a preference. It is not judging those who do not have that characteristic.
If I had purple skin --- would you want me?
Of course, not -- not 'automatically', at least.
Why? Because, there are other things that are also important.
Is making that statement an insult to those who do not have purple skin?
Of course not! Why? Because, it is only stating a preference. It is not judging those who do not have that characteristic.
I realize that a preference of purple skin wouldn't be the problem at all (if there is a problem), but rather talking about it so much. But maybe it's just normal human preferences and appreciation of different traits etc.