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

[Liamson]

Actually... Liamson... It is YOU who is assuming that people are judging for not violating a biblical standards because YOU are the one who is insisting no such standard exists... BUT IT DOES. It isn't normal, as in irregular... not abnormal/defective. I don't know anybody who thinks its any man's duty to find a wife regardless of whether or not they are ready or their heart isn't in it. I do know people who notice the irregularity of a 30-40-50 yea old man who has not married and it raises questions... legitimate questions for the people surrounding said mythical "almost 30 unmarried christian man". They care about mythical man, they care about mythical man's spiritual condition, personal growth, emotional health, etc. These caring people who inquire are intersted in his best interest...not in gossip fodder. They want to pray for mythical man, give him good counsel, help him overcome his conflicts and encourage him on the path of life. If mythical man could accept this view... He might discover a better attitude, feel less stubborn/rebelious, find some healing, develop a softer heart and thus hear the voice of God in the words of others.

I think mythical man has nothing to loose in carefully considering such... and much to gain.

Who cares at what age a person gets married at?

Why is there such pressure to go galavanting off headlong into an arbitrary relationship with a random stranger from church, because a man's purpose is to find a wife. Now that is some Jane Austen Nonsense right there.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." -Jane Austen

(who by the way never married)

 

[Liamson]

I didn't meant saying that it had anything with age to do. I was more pointing to that if God has already brought the man of her life in front of her, and he is everything she would wish for in her mate but only not having "the looks" that she wants, then it would be foolish as well as a waste waiting for years untill she realizes that he was always there before her eyes, but because she was too blinded by her desire of wanting her chosen husband to being also "handsome", whilst this man already was the man God had chosen for her, she might go wasting a lot of time and become more frustrated the longer the time goes before realizing it after many year's time.

There are even followers of Christ that do not always agree about nor likes by first sight their chosen spouse, whilst God has clearly told them that this is the one they are to marry. But most of these beleivers manages to getting off from that thought or they happen to fall for them later on.

YES!!

Much Agreed.

Too Often the Mate is idealized, as if people are filling a position on Monster dot com. People make their lists and don't realize the very thing you are describing.

Marriage is not a position to be filled through rigorous applications and long term interviews with strangers. Its not about jumping through hoops and fulfilling job descriptions. Its about a loving relationship with another human being. Its about choosing to forsake all others for the sake of one person.

...who may very well be already in your life

 

[Precious_Sunflower]

Who cares at what age a person gets married at?

Why is there such pressure to go galavanting off headlong into an arbitrary relationship with a random stranger from church, because a man's purpose is to find a wife. Now that is some Jane Austen Nonsense right there.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." -Jane Austen

(who by the way never married)

That is right. Very sad her "love story". Yet she became a great writer, gifted by God with writing skills. To overcome the sorrow of seeing the man of her life marrying someone else to gain fortune through her marriage, she instead decided dedicating her life to "her writings", as well as doing this gave her great joy and comforted her during the last years of her life too.

 

[Precious_Sunflower]

...who may very well be already in your life

Indeed, he is Needs to get worked on(the marriage)a lot too, though... But it is all worth it

 

[BarlyGurl]

Who cares at what age a person gets married at? I think you are missing the point of the entire post, the age isn't the issue... it is incidental... but the older the man... the more "irregular" the instance. I see you quick mind is uninterested in the intent as well as the content of my previous post.

Why is there such pressure to go galavanting off headlong into an arbitrary relationship with a random stranger from church, because a man's purpose is to find a wife. Now that is some Jane Austen Nonsense right there. Okay. Did you want to switch focus to examining the suggestion of "WHO pressured" and "WHO galavanted"?? It seems you are holding fast to the idea that anyone would want ARBITRARY to be a factor.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." -Jane Austen (who by the way never married)

I thought we were discussing how marriage is God's plan and will for your life, unless you choose to be a eunuch?? Who gives a crap about Jane Austen??? BTW, When did you obtain possession of a good fortune???

 

[Jullianna]

Oh, when one asks for a breakdown of the meanings and different kinds of love its hard choose just one. I was working roughly off Lewis's The Four Loves (agape, affection, familial love, eros)

David didn't live with Michel much though, I believe that was part of the problem there.

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.

As for the last statement, I have heard of such things, but it is a somewhat alien thing to me. I know it happens though, the number of grown men I've had to explain basic things about eroticism and a woman's libido and such too is frustratingly high.

Though even then, I do kind of stand by what I've said. Universally the men I've had to talk to have problems with their women because they really never took the time to learn how she feels in different situations. If they spent more time considering the needs of their woman and meeting their needs they'd need not run into those problems.

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.

 

[Jullianna]

Love is a choice.

Familial love is "family Love" which is born from natural family relationship and not really the kind necessary or intended for husband and wife. So inserting "familial" love into a EROS context is apples and oranges... but I realize some people just like to argue... not that anyone is doing that here.

If what was meant to say Philos Love--- which is friendship love and requires cultivation, I consider that to be a necessary component to the husband and wife relationship. Eros is the chemical love and yes SEX is required to cultivate this attraction since neglecting it over time has a negative a extinguishing effect. Agape is the uncondtional Love.

It IS POSSIBLE to DEVELOP Eros for a partner after cultivating Philos and doing such would be harmonizing with Agape.

A woman who does not want to have sex or refuses would be dishonoring marriage, God, her vows, and ultimately lacking or blatantly refusing to assume her responibility all three Love catagories.

It was not my insertion. It was the poster's to whom I responded. I also didn't say they violated their marital obligations and didn't have sex. I said they didn't want to have sex. Please don't add words to my posts.

 

[Jullianna]

I'm not denying the existence your feelings, or the power of your feelings. I also have been in love; deeply in love, I gave her a ring, I only ever saw a future with her in it. I know what it feels like to lose it. What I'm suggesting is that those powerful feelings are in addition to love, maybe even a result of love(and the intimacy involved); not love itself.

But, again, I would ask how one would define it?

 

[Liamson]

I thought we were discussing how marriage is God's plan and will for your life, unless you choose to be a eunuch?? Who gives a crap about Jane Austen??? BTW, When did you obtain possession of a good fortune???

No, thats never been my point. I made the point of saying that that was not my perspective earlier. I'm saying if you fall in love get married. That is the season to do it. Don't go looking for marriage, for the sake of itself. Look for love. Cultivate relationships with friends and neighbors. Be filled with the Spirit and with Life and with Love and surely you will never be alone, Married or not

Jane Austen Novels served as a Literary critique about how Women NEEDED marriage to serve the function of establishing social status. Well, we live in an age where women do not need to marry men for social status and social status in and of itself should be relegated to the dustbin of history. Yet, in American Pop- culture there is this idealization that women should pursue rich man who romance them with lavish nonsense. Which Frankly Song of Solomon serves as an interesting rebuttal against the entire concept.

 

[Jullianna]

*Crawls across the screen, clawing and fighting for survival through every post.*

Almost made it... to... the end... of the thread...

*gasp*

AT LAST!!! I MADE IT!!! VICTORY!!!!

*immediately falls over and collapses*

(Could someone please bring me a large pizza and a Coke so that I'll have the strength to continue reading...)

I'll make us some popcorn, Kim. Getting pretty bored with it now

 

[BarlyGurl]

It was not my insertion. It was the poster's to whom I responded. I also didn't say they violated their marital obligations and didn't have sex. I said they didn't want to have sex. Please don't add words to my posts.

I am aware of WHERE the word familial originated. I also addressed the "DONT WANT TO HAVE SEX" and included the "the refuse to" scenario. I did not ADD any words to your post... in Fact, I think I deleted a portion for sake of clarity regarding my response to what I was reading on the thread. SO get over yourself, My post was entirely mine, and if you are offended by my using a guote from your post as a spring board for mine... too bad... it's an open discussion forum... GROW UP. I will in the future delete your NAME... so there will be no confusion that I am specifically addressing you... though you clearly indicate the issue is somehow 'misquoting or misrepresenting" your words vs. engaging you in conversation. Have a nice evening!

 

[LightningClap0002]

But, again, I would ask how one would define it?

I can't tell you how anyone would, but I would define it as the common denominator between all of the loves defined in the Bible. When I read that God is love, I've asked myself what does that mean? Does it mean He demonstrates all of the attributes of love? Does it mean He literally IS all of the attributes of love?
As for me, I do take this verse literally. I think that God IS literally love. What that means is that no one can have love without God. So I looked at marriages completely devoid of God and saw people absolutely convinced that they loved each other. So I sought to understand what it was that they were really saying. For most it was the emotion; as has been written about quite extensively (including about christians), this emotion isn't ever-present. It waxes and it wanes, its replaced with pure hot anger, or bitter sadness, or great giddyness. With the many of the marriages devoid of Christ, things like pride, fear, obligation or satisfaction allowed many to push through the lows and other emotions long enough to get back to that loving emotion. With the good strong Christian marriages, I saw something else. It was a choice fueled out of things like patience, kindness, forgiveness. The highs and lows even were a bit more mellow, self-control prevented the low points from dipping quite as low. Where others compromised, they willingly sacrificed, not out of obligation. I digress...

In the end, what really fuels my definition, though, is that common denominator: a choice leading inextricably to a righteous action. Of course, this also leads to another question, 'what is true righteousness?' For me, this leads back to God. God IS righteousness, so He gets to 'define' it as He wishes. So, in the end I'm left with but one course of action if I want to truly love anyone, most of all a wife: To seek God's righteousness, His will. So I love God by choosing him, which leads to the righteous action of seeking His will.

I didn't specifically call out scripture above, but there are notes of it spread throughout. If you would find it beneficial for me to quote chapter and verse I can certainly do so.

What about you?

 

[Jullianna]

I am aware of WHERE the word familial originated. I also addressed the "DONT WANT TO HAVE SEX" and included the "the refuse to" scenario. I did not ADD any words to your post... in Fact, I think I deleted a portion for sake of clarity regarding my response to what I was reading on the thread. SO get over yourself, My post was entirely mine, and if you are offended by my using a guote from your post as a spring board for mine... too bad... it's an open discussion forum... GROW UP. I will in the future delete your NAME... so there will be no confusion that I am specifically addressing you... though you clearly indicate the issue is somehow 'misquoting or misrepresenting" your words vs. engaging you in conversation. Have a nice evening!

No worries! It's just a chat forum, but I do appreciate your thoughtful offer regarding all future posts! Thanks!

 

[Jordache]

I don't know. Courting seems good to me. I don't think I'd feel comfortable with anyone choosing my husband for me as in an arranged marriage. Midieval courtship is a little weird, but I still agree with most if it. Though I would rather refer to it as dating with purpose. Dating or courting doesn't have to be about planning secret make out sessions, over the too romance, or anything of the sort. Starting in groups is certainly a good place to start, but alone time is necessary not to get frisky but to really get to know the person.

 

[LightningClap0002]

I don't know. Courting seems good to me. I don't think I'd feel comfortable with anyone choosing my husband for me as in an arranged marriage. Midieval courtship is a little weird, but I still agree with most if it. Though I would rather refer to it as dating with purpose. Dating or courting doesn't have to be about planning secret make out sessions, over the too romance, or anything of the sort. Starting in groups is certainly a good place to start, but alone time is necessary not to get frisky but to really get to know the person.

May I ask why you think alone time is necessary?

 

[Jullianna]

I can't tell you how anyone would, but I would define it as the common denominator between all of the loves defined in the Bible. When I read that God is love, I've asked myself what does that mean? Does it mean He demonstrates all of the attributes of love? Does it mean He literally IS all of the attributes of love?
As for me, I do take this verse literally. I think that God IS literally love. What that means is that no one can have love without God. So I looked at marriages completely devoid of God and saw people absolutely convinced that they loved each other. So I sought to understand what it was that they were really saying. For most it was the emotion; as has been written about quite extensively (including about christians), this emotion isn't ever-present. It waxes and it wanes, its replaced with pure hot anger, or bitter sadness, or great giddyness. With the many of the marriages devoid of Christ, things like pride, fear, obligation or satisfaction allowed many to push through the lows and other emotions long enough to get back to that loving emotion. With the good strong Christian marriages, I saw something else. It was a choice fueled out of things like patience, kindness, forgiveness. The highs and lows even were a bit more mellow, self-control prevented the low points from dipping quite as low. Where others compromised, they willingly sacrificed, not out of obligation. I digress...

In the end, what really fuels my definition, though, is that common denominator: a choice leading inextricably to a righteous action. Of course, this also leads to another question, 'what is true righteousness?' For me, this leads back to God. God IS righteousness, so He gets to 'define' it as He wishes. So, in the end I'm left with but one course of action if I want to truly love anyone, most of all a wife: To seek God's righteousness, His will. So I love God by choosing him, which leads to the righteous action of seeking His will.

I didn't specifically call out scripture above, but there are notes of it spread throughout. If you would find it beneficial for me to quote chapter and verse I can certainly do so.

What about you?

Nice definition

I suppose if I had to define love, whether it be of God or a spouse, I would say that it is the driving force behind my devotion, obedience, submission, nurturing, affection, devotion, longing for more and more of them every day, and sharing the very core of all that I am with them. It can also be a source of frustration and anger at times, borne from witnessing the pain and/or abuse of the weak, innocent or holiness. It may not exactly be a verb, but it certainly sets so many other verbs in motion in my life.

 

[Jordache]

There is a lot you can learn about a person in groups, but there is also a lot you can learn about a person when alone. I'm not saying you sit alone in your apartment. There are much safer ways to spend alone time... Walks, dinner, etc.

 

[LightningClap0002]

There is a lot you can learn about a person in groups, but there is also a lot you can learn about a person when alone. I'm not saying you sit alone in your apartment. There are much safer ways to spend alone time... Walks, dinner, etc.

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. :/

 

[PopClick]

Nice definition

I suppose if I had to define love, whether it be of God or a spouse, I would say that it is the driving force behind my devotion, obedience, submission, nurturing, affection, devotion, longing for more and more of them every day, and sharing the very core of all that I am with them. It can also be a source of frustration and anger at times, borne from witnessing the pain and/or abuse of the weak, innocent or holiness. It may not exactly be a verb, but it certainly sets so many other verbs in motion in my life.

Aargh, I wanna "like" this twice! I get irritated when people say that love is JUST a verb. If that were the case, you would have to include obligations that were carried out grudgingly.

 

[Pheonix]

Arranged marriages can be good, too, yes. As I said, romance is at best a tertiary issue.

I would also say that I believe a husband has a duty to pay the father of the bride a price for her, as a sign of the covenant being sealed symbolically by his willingness to support her.

Talk about medieval!!!! Who would want to be sold like a cow?????