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

[meggars]

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.

well....i'm speaking culturally as well as historically since there are some cultures that still practice this sort of tradition...and i absolutely agree that God has not changed. I'm not trying to sweep anything off the table...i am all for following God's laws and teachings. the gyst of what i wrote was that i couldn't find any such laws and teachings on the table in the first place. I could not find verses that specifically showed that God said ''woman shall remain with her father until she marries and if she doesn't marry she shall remain with him until he dies when someone else like an uncle or brother will take over''. we know that's how they rolled based on cultural/historical context of the time and place... and because it comes up throughout the stories of the OT. there are probably a lot of other cultural norms that are mentioned because that was the context the verses set within....that doesn't automatically make them laws to be followed lest you should find yourself a sinner for not living like a Jew did several thousand years ago. i also don't look for wool and flax or clothe my household in scarlet....is that a cultural thing? or is there no such thing as the importance of cultural context and the fact that i don't do these things means i'm not a virtuous woman after all. i best find me some sheep.

 

[BarlyGurl]

There is absolutely nothing Random about the verses I selected.
well I guess if you desire to debate and defend your post in a derailment vs... discussing the original point made when I entered the conversation...okay.
There is the Ten Commandments and there is the Mosiac Law.
There are Directives (from the mouth of God), The Ten Commadments are Mosaic law, Ecclessiatical Law, and Leverite Law which are all part of JUDIASM, we are not informed much about ROMAN LAW, GREEK LAW or any much other specific cultura/religous and government laws save for contrast and learning such generally requires some outside study... JUST AS investigatively studying Jewish culture and customs, Tolmuld and Judaism is important to understand what is being said in the scripture. Seems have spent an extarodinary amount of time studying Philosphy and Literature for the love of knowledge as opposed to the bible and bible things for the love of God.

The Mosiac Law was given to a specific people at a specific time, during a specific context.
So it's antiquated and has no relavence for modern times???

Even Jesus says that God allowed Moses to write a law concerning Divorce because the people's hearts were hard.
Are they any less hard TODAY???

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.
Well if you are "LOVING" God with all your heart, soul, MIND and STRENGTH wouldn't it behoove a person to know the bible really really well? Wouldn't learning the intricate particularities of ancient customs and WHY they are there become a primary concern to nurture intimacy with the one you Love? Shouldn't the bible and scripture be what the MIND is most invested in be the best and most loving use vs packing it with worldly things and vain philosophies? Wouldn't committing to performing all life activities in the service of of to Glorify God qualify as the most practical application of Loving with all your strength? And regarding your neighbor... doesn't this simply include them in the whole service and glorifying God part of the equation?

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

The Whole Counsel of God... is knowing the bible well enough from beginning to end and thus having confidence when using it as a resource guide for life... that you are rightly dividing the word and using the scripture appropriately.... as opposed to random vs... snatched out of context, mystically applied to our personal circumstances and believing the self-delusion that that is somehow practicing Christianity.

 

[BarlyGurl]

well....i'm speaking culturally as well as historically since there are some cultures that still practice this sort of tradition...and i absolutely agree that God has not changed. I'm not trying to sweep anything off the table...i am all for following God's laws and teachings. the gyst of what i wrote was that i couldn't find any such laws and teachings on the table in the first place. I could not find verses that specifically showed that God said ''woman shall remain with her father until she marries and if she doesn't marry she shall remain with him until he dies when someone else like an uncle or brother will take over''. we know that's how they rolled based on cultural/historical context of the time and place... and because it comes up throughout the stories of the OT. there are probably a lot of other cultural norms that are mentioned because that was the context the verses set within....that doesn't automatically make them laws to be followed lest you should find yourself a sinner for not living like a Jew did several thousand years ago. i also don't look for wool and flax or clothe my household in scarlet....is that a cultural thing? or is there no such thing as the importance of cultural context and the fact that i don't do these things means i'm not a virtuous woman after all. i best find me some sheep.

Meggars, I really appreciate the reasonableness of your response, until the last 4 sentences. I am not sure if you really mean the questions but assume your are intending to be sarcastic as the no one, at least not me has suggested you lacked virtue or that you might need sheep.

 

[Liamson]

Look, God gave us Laws, we (whenever) have screwed up the heart and the intent of the Laws were intended to do. I don't know how I can make that any clearer, other than using examples in Scripture where there was Clarifications of this very thing. Call them Random, Arbitrary or whatever, I don't care because if you don't understand the heart of it, it might seem like they are just irrelevant.

Knowing the Bible really well, is in and of itself, just knowing the Bible really well. Scribes and Pharisees knew the Bible really Well and Jesus made the sum of their knowledge trivial. It is better to have a little knowledge tempered with Wisdom in the service of Love, than to have memorized the sum of scripture for the sake of not being seen as wrong.

Asking Rhetorical questions like "Wouldn't committing to performing all life activities in the service of of to Glorify God qualify as the most practical application of Loving with all your strength?" Is changing the subject. No one is going to disagree with you about that, because that is not what we are talking about. Bringing up all of the particulars pertaining to what The implementation of the two Greatest Commandments, is doing exactly what Jesus was preaching against.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Matthew 23:2-4

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are." Matthew 23:13-15


Its not our Job to try and force other people to be subject to the Doctrines of Men. We can't keep making more and more hoops for people to jump through based upon our own interpretation of Laws. If it does work For Christ and He boiled it down, clarified the purpose and gave us the Gospel, I'm not going to complicate it.

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30

 

[meggars]

Meggars, I really appreciate the reasonableness of your response, until the last 4 sentences. I am not sure if you really mean the questions but assume your are intending to be sarcastic as the no one, at least not me has suggested you lacked virtue or that you might need sheep.

just a joke to make the point that not every verse taken in cultural context of the time will necessarily apply today. if a woman can be virtuous today without spinning wool or gathering flax, then to say she is somehow wrong to not be living under her father's authority for all time (unless married) just because that's how things were done in OT time and culture might be a stretch.

 

[Liamson]

There is a fundamental difference between the two approaches.

One to clear the way for the light of the Holy Spirit to guide us in relationships. It says that the Law has been written on our heart, and that we can trust what we know is right, regardless of the "Rules" We understand the Parables and the greatest 2 commandments, have a personal relationship with Christ, His example and Character is our Guide.

The other is to simply to enforce the Rules, in a way which seems to uphold the highest standard.

But this is also the difference between, Jean Val-jean and Inspector Javert.

 

[meggars]

But this is also the difference between, Jean Val-jean and Inspector Javert.

loooooooooooved the movie. couldn't bring myself to totally dislike inspector javert even though he was the ''bad guy''...his struggle between what he was right in his heart and what he thought was right in his head was pretty sad to see.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Executing my own face palm wondering how to go about better communicating...
Here let me help you...

Look, God gave us Laws, we (whenever) have screwed up the heart and the intent of the Laws were intended to do.
Perhaps if you can simply and plainly define which laws and what those laws were meant to do we might have a mutual springboard (maybe?), hint, this should be accomplished in a sentence or two.

I don't know how I can make that any clearer, other than using examples in Scripture where there was Clarifications of this very thing. Call them Random, Arbitrary or whatever, I don't care because if you don't understand the heart of it, it might seem like they are just irrelevant.

REALLY? I am thinking the truth is "YOU JUST DON"T CARE", (nice neighbor lovin") because you ought to be able to communicate certain ideas clearly to point of resolving this conflict as opposed to resorting to "I don't care- you don't get it" accusations that imply you are somehow spiritually superior. I care, you aren't getting it, and I will attempt to reason with you with the continual hope that you COULD and MIGHT get it and thus the conflict will be RESOLVED as opposed to IGNORED.

Knowing the Bible really well, is in and of itself, just knowing the Bible really well. Scribes and Pharisees knew the Bible really Well and Jesus made the sum of their knowledge trivial. Uh... no he didn't... he never made the knowledge trivial... the LAW was VITAL to ALL his teaching. Good grief... the law was the very platter used to serve up the feast It is better to have a little knowledge tempered with Wisdom in the service of Love, Where is that precise scripture of the collective which support that as a biblical principal? If you present it... than it's just "blah blah blah" vain philosophy.

Prov. 9:10 Fear of the LORD is the foundation of wisdom. Knowledge of the Holy One results in good judgment
Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

....than to have memorized the sum of scripture for the sake of not being seen as wrong.
I don't know why you feel compelled to introduce "memorization" into the discussion... I never said anything about memorization. Saying that I did... is false, a ruse to confuse the issue. Claiming to have diagnosed my MOTIVE for the fabricated ruse is false judgement, dishonest and well... just crappy interpersonal relations skill.
Psalm 119:11, I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.
Psalm 37:31 The law of his God is in his heart; his feet do not slip.
Psalm 40:8 I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart."
Psalm 86:11 Teach me your way, O LORD, and I will walk in your truth; give me an undivided heart, that I may fear your name.

I read these accumulated verses to be making a pretty good AGAINST the philosophy that a "little" knowledge produces any "wisdom". We don't serve LOVE we serve GOD.


Asking Rhetorical questions like "Wouldn't committing to performing all life activities in the service of of to Glorify God qualify as the most practical application of Loving with all your strength?" Is changing the subject. No one is going to disagree with you about that, because that is not what we are talking about. I have to conclude that you really do just want to argue For the sake of battle... because picking this one sentence (above) out of my previous post which was plainly intended to be inclusive context of a whole thought... is also poor style for argument and persuasion. It is YOU who attempts to shift blame for changing the subject since the importance of CONTEXT was a component of the original issue.
Bringing up all of the particulars pertaining to what The implementation of the two Greatest Commandments, is doing exactly what Jesus was preaching against.
REALLY... So again you allude that the particulars are antiquated and inconsequential???? How could anybody know what " Love God and Love thy Neighbor" looks like with out all the precise instructive particulars??? otherwise it is just a big ole' free for all to do what you please and call it GOOD. Here's a very good sermon excerpT explaining:
The Book of Judges chronicles Israel’s behavior for a few hundred years after they entered the Promised Land and before the reign of King Saul. Israel repeatedly turned from God to idolatry resulting in moral and cultural depravity. Although America is not Israel, the moral and cultural truths are applicable today.

In the wilderness God warned His people to do what was right in God’s eyes and against following their own hearts. “You must have this tassel so that you may look at it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and obey them and so that you do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes that lead you to unfaithfulness” (Numbers 15:39). “Thus you must obey the Lord your God, keeping all his commandments that I am giving you today and doing what is right before him” (Deuteronomy 13:18; cf. 12:25). “You must not do like we are doing here today, with everyone doing what seems best to him…” (Deuteronomy 12:8).

During the course of the Book of Judges the Israelites repeatedly did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, i.e. they worshipped false gods (2:11; 3:7,12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). God would then hand them over to their enemies, and when the people repented, God raised up a judge to deliver them.

“When a leader died, the next generation would again act more wickedly than the previous one. They would follow after other gods, worshiping them and bowing down to them. They did not give up their practices or their stubborn ways” (Judges 2:19).

The phrase “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” appears twice (17:6 and 21:25). The context of the first occurrence reads, “Now this man Micah owned a shrine. He made an ephod and some personal idols and hired one of his sons to serve as a priest. In those days Israel had no king. Each man did what he considered to be right” (17:5-6 NET). Micah was an Ephraimite who violated the law in two respects. First, he worshipped idols. Second, he hired his son, not a Levite, to serve as priest. In this religious context the phrase under consideration is intriguing.

Israel was a theocracy in which God was their King. Gideon rejected the crown and said, “the Lord shall rule over you” (9:23). Thus Israel had a king, but the people ignored Him so that the practical effect was as if they had no king. Absent authority to enforce the law, the people neglected the law and did what they considered right.

In a theocracy the temporal king is God’s authority on earth who holds political power but who also must enforce the religious law. At the time of the judges there was no king, except the short-lived murderer and usurper Abimelech (ch. 9). There was no earthly authority to enforce the law and apparently the people forgot to teach their children to obey God’s commandments.

BTW... I am truly hopin' you do not mean to imply that I am a Pharisee... cuz that is categorically wrong... but i do see how trying to make that to be the case... you can attempt to justify ignoring the instruction .

Its not our Job to try and force other people to be subject to the Doctrines of Men. WHO is talking about the doctrines of men???? I have been talking about the precepts of GOD!!!

We can't keep making more and more hoops for people to jump through based upon our own interpretation of Laws. I have never suggested making more hoops for people to jump thru...and have in reality just spent considerable time trying to show YOU how you are the one having your own interpretation by not KNOWING the particulars for the OT laws and customs that are the CONTEXT for accurately KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING the precepts of God.

If it does work For Christ and He boiled it down, clarified the purpose and gave us the Gospel, I'm not going to complicate it. Well You have...Jesus didn't GIVE us the GOSPEL... the GOSPEL is the message given on how to GET JESUS!!

 

[Liamson]

loooooooooooved the movie. couldn't bring myself to totally dislike inspector javert even though he was the ''bad guy''...his struggle between what he was right in his heart and what he thought was right in his head was pretty sad to see.

I think that was the Author's point.

I believe the Character of Javert views the world more in terms of authority and rebellion against authority, and the infallibility of the law is just a consequence of that. I think authority is what he considers himself supremely answerable to, where other people would consider themselves bound by a sense of right and wrong; if asked, of course he would answer that authority is always in the right and rebellion is always in the wrong, but his ultimate sense of loyalty and duty is to authority, not to What is Good. In the end, being faced with a system of Ethics that conflicts with the system of authority and rebellion.

Whereas Valjean, is the case of redeption, "Jean Valjean my brother you no longer belong to evil. With this silver, I have bought your soul." He uses his Grace to become Love and Charity and Good, regardless of the Law.

Just as it is not wrong for Javert to uphold the Law, neither is it wrong for Valjean to be the reformed Man that he is. However the conflict arises when the Law, no longer serves the ethical direction of its original intent.

Which is where I draw the Parallel between making More unnecessary rules and Regulations concerning Relationships and Headship and accountability and responsibility. If people are lacking the Ethics that it takes to follow what they know is right to do in a Christian relationship, from the Holy Spirit, MORE Regulations and rules and laws are not going to change the outcome.

So Rather than Digging up and enforcing all 600+ Jewish Laws for the sake of being right, about relationships, we should simply follow Jesus' Ultimate 2 commands.

 

[meggars]

I think that was the Author's point.

I believe the Character of Javert views the world more in terms of authority and rebellion against authority, and the infallibility of the law is just a consequence of that. I think authority is what he considers himself supremely answerable to, where other people would consider themselves bound by a sense of right and wrong; if asked, of course he would answer that authority is always in the right and rebellion is always in the wrong, but his ultimate sense of loyalty and duty is to authority, not to What is Good. In the end, being faced with a system of Ethics that conflicts with the system of authority and rebellion.

Whereas Valjean, is the case of redeption, "Jean Valjean my brother you no longer belong to evil. With this silver, I have bought your soul." He uses his Grace to become Love and Charity and Good, regardless of the Law.

Just as it is not wrong for Javert to uphold the Law, neither is it wrong for Valjean to be the reformed Man that he is. However the conflict arises when the Law, no longer serves the ethical direction of its original intent.

Which is where I draw the Parallel between making More unnecessary rules and Regulations concerning Relationships and Headship and accountability and responsibility. If people are lacking the Ethics that it takes to follow what they know is right to do in a Christian relationship, from the Holy Spirit, MORE Regulations and rules and laws are not going to change the outcome.

So Rather than Digging up and enforcing all 600+ Jewish Laws for the sake of being right, about relationships, we should simply follow Jesus' Ultimate 2 commands.

true story....side note - when Javert pins the medal on Gavroche....if i had a heart i probably would have actually cried at least one...single...solitary tear (i love me some redundancy)

 

[Liamson]

I don't care what Term you use to Describe the Verses I have selected. <Original context is key.

"Where is that precise scripture of the collective which support that as a biblical principal?" Um weren't we just talking about the Pharisees? I'm sure they "Knew it all" yet, that didn't somehow make them wiser. Jesus explicitly states in His parables, See: Good Samaritan, that its not what you know but, what you do with with know that matters. Ie, Wisdom is the Practical application of Knowledge. If you can't understand what I'm saying, its perhaps because the Parables have eluded you.

Memorization is a Ruse? No that is what Scribes were renowned for their knowledge of Scripture. They could quote and scribble better than anyone.

I'm not talking about AMERICA, I'm talking about Christianity and Christian Relationships. The Lord is our King. There is no Vacuum of Morality as far as the Holy Spirit is concerned. (No I don't have a scripture reference, for this "Vain Philosophy" either)

Doctrines of men, are the attempt to justify extraneous measures to fulfill the laws of God.

Jesus didn't preach the Gospel? What brand of Christianity are you from?

Matt 4:23 Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

Matthew 7:12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Matthew 7:12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets

Liamson,
I am fully aware that you have a fast mind... but you could not have in any way... considered with any degree of respect or care, the full content, nor intent of my lengthy previous post in that very short amount of time. The rapid response and the wresting of my words... demontrates plainly that you are more about the battle... then in resolving the conflict. I decline to participate further... so you won the battle... but at what cost?

 

[Liamson]

I don't care about resolving the conflict. I want to clean up the ever expanding mess that was created. Its like the BP oil spill in here.

I don't want people to get unnecessarily hung up on the Law. ( Missing the forest for the trees)

The Tassels are a good example of the Doctrines of Men.

I don't want someone to believe that they have to pour over volumes of Laws in the Torah, just to understand the Gospel of Christ.

This whole conversation is a derailment of the original conversation I was having with Progressivenergirl and it has exceeded its bounds of talking about The head of the household or relationships.

 

[BarlyGurl]

I don't care about resolving the conflict. I want to clean up the ever expanding mess that was created. Its like the BP oil spill in here.
Oh, I see...Inserting yourself into my commentary directed at meggars post, going to extraordinary lengths to add unneccesary and erroneous information to MY contributuon to the thread discussion... putting considerable effort into discrediting my point, twisting my words and confusing the point did indeed make a mess... yet truly cleaning it up would have been to resolve the conflict vs. being the greatest contributor to the expanding mess... who points fingers at the mess and makes himself out to be a hero for throwing out a containment buoy....so much for relationship.

I don't want people to get unnecessarily hung up on the Law. ( Missing the forest for the trees) Neither do I, but there is REAL CAUSE to be informed about Jewish culture, Tradition and OT Law to understand and apply Biblical principals in one's life (know which trees in the forest to cut down).

The Tassels are a good example of the Doctrines of Men. Really? that is a pretty vague statement. maybe take this as an opportunity to instruct us.... please do fully explain what you are saying here.

This whole conversation is a derailment of the original conversation I was having with Progressivenergirl and it has exceeded its bounds of talking about The head of the household or relationships.

It is progressivegirl's thread and I don't hear her complaining. I suppose you could begin a new thread to expound on how "The Tassels are a good example of the Doctrines of Men"... that's an option for resolving the potential conflict regarding a derailment.

 

[Liamson]

Numbers 15:39

each one relates to one of the Laws of Moses.

It's important to notice that after God wrote the Ten Commandments, he "added no more" to this Law, yet God gave Moses statutes, precepts, judgments, and ordinances afterwards. If the Mosaic law was part of the Ten Commandments, there would be a contradiction here, because God did add more to this law! But there was no contradiction, because God considered the Ten Commandments to be a separate Law. The Ten Commandments were spoken by God himself to the people, so that God would instruct them. There was no mediator involved! Moses was not the mediator of the Ten Commandments. But he was the mediator of the sacrificial laws:

However what we INFER and what is IMPLIED are distinct and separate things.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Numbers 15:39

each one relates to one of the Laws of Moses.

It's important to notice that after God wrote the Ten Commandments, he "added no more" to this Law, yet God gave Moses statutes, precepts, judgments, and ordinances afterwards. If the Mosaic law was part of the Ten Commandments, there would be a contradiction here, because God did add more to this law! But there was no contradiction, because God considered the Ten Commandments to be a separate Law. The Ten Commandments were spoken by God himself to the people, so that God would instruct them. There was no mediator involved! Moses was not the mediator of the Ten Commandments. But he was the mediator of the sacrificial laws:

However what we INFER and what is IMPLIED are distinct and separate things.

Is this your instruction in it's entirety... and thus fully concluded?

 

[BarlyGurl]

Is this your instruction in it's entirety... and thus fully concluded?

This is for the reading audience... to correct and previous post regarding scriptural and defining errors of the Law, 10 commandments and WHO did What.
liamson wrote>>>>
It's important to notice that after God wrote the Ten Commandments God didn't WRITE the ten commandments... he spoke them to Moses, who spoke them to the people, later the tablets were made, then broken, then remade. he "added no more" to this Law, yet God gave Moses statutes, precepts, judgments, and ordinances afterwards. The statutes and ordinances were for the purpose of properly EXECUTING the Commandments. THe 10 comandments are the 10 commandments... Mosaic Law is the sum of the statutes and ordinances regarding the governance and execution of the 10 Comandmants. If the Mosaic law was part of the Ten Commandments, there would be a contradiction here, because God did add more to this law! But there was no contradiction, because God considered the Ten Commandments to be a separate Law. False... the people could not have exectuted the 10 commandments without the LAW to instruct them. THat is what the LAW is for to instruct in righteiousness... some of the audience will notice the familiararity of the phrase The Ten Commandments were spoken by God himself to the people, so that God would instruct them. There was no mediator involved! False Where Moses mediates between God and the people Moses was not the mediator of the Ten Commandments. But he was the mediator of the sacrificial laws: False x2, Moses was the mediator for giving the commandments, the Leverite priests were the mediators of the sacrificial Laws, and the Elders were the mediators of Judgements and Governance.
PLEASE SEE EXODUS 19-20, Where Moses mediates between God and the people.

There is a pretty good thread on 'which covenant" started on bible forum right now.

 

[rachelsedge]

I'm almost afraid to get involved in this discussion, ha, but I have read most of the responses and I have a question for progressivenerdgirl and the others who talked about arranged marriages, etc.:

Just for clarification, are you saying that any two Christians of the opposite sex are compatible for marriage? Just stick a Christian girl with a Christian guy and they'll be okay in marriage?

 

[Liamson]

The Lord actually wrote the commandments listed in Exodus Chapter 34:1 on the original stone tablets and gave them to Moses. And Just like in the Charlton Heston movie Moses destroyed them.

Every Ordinance given by Moses and executed by whoever, is Mosaic Law. The Levites and the Priests did not recieve the Sacrficial instructions etc from God, Moses did.

It Goes: GOD -> Moses -> Everyone else.

God told Moses, Moses told everyone else.

I think you are Nuking it.

I'm just going to make a YouTube Video about, with diagrams, and text boxes.

 

[LightningClap0002]

I'm almost afraid to get involved in this discussion, ha, but I have read most of the responses and I have a question for progressivenerdgirl and the others who talked about arranged marriages, etc.:

Just for clarification, are you saying that any two Christians of the opposite sex are compatible for marriage? Just stick a Christian girl with a Christian guy and they'll be okay in marriage?

Way too tempting. I've missed the past 50 or so posts, but my opinion based on both biblical examples and some others is that any two christians brought together by God, centered on christ, can have a successful marriage. The less compatible they are, the more difficult it is, but I'm sure dying on the cross wasn't easy either.

So, I'd say its wise to drive out any difficulty you can before marriage, but that the rest is completely up to God.