• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Women unworthy of marriage to a 'Christian' man[W26]

This alleged pastor is epitomizing almost all the negative stereotypes about Christians in modern society. Worth a read.

Sample quote: 'Remember, you want godly, not gaudy.'

Although I am not Christian, I can completely understand where he's coming from on this. The same things generally apply when it comes to the qualities that I would look for in a husband, except that I think he went overboard a little on a couple of them.
These are applicable principles, whether you are a man or a woman.

I wouldn't want a "believer" in the same sense that he means it, but I would want someone who is open to my own views, and who isn't a hateful anti-religious ass.

The divorcee question would center around why the divorce happened. Did he get one because he just decided he didn't like his wife anymore, or did she want the divorce, or was is just simply a matter of an amicable separation without a lot of drama?

The older man situation doesn't apply to me, but the younger man question would. I wouldn't want a man who was significantly younger than I. It would be uncomfortable to me, unless the guy was exceptionally mature for his age.

I think the equivalent of the feminist issue for me, would be one of whether or not the man was what I would view as weak. I don't want a man whom I can push around. I have no respect for that. I am not a feminist, but I expect to be equal, and not dominant, nor submissive. My parents, who were very devout Christians, has an equal partnership. Neither was dominant over the other.

The sexy dresser- I can see where he's coming from on this. The applicable question would be, assuming it were a man, is, is he dressing like that for me, or to impress other women? If it's the latter, it's a problem, as it implies that he has issues with his desirability, and needs to validate it through other sexual attractions.

The loud mouth- understandable- that denotes a sense of insecurity and a strong need for attention. Both childish traits.

The wander-luster- This is something which needs to be balanced, on the part of both parties in a relationsip. Both should have outside interests, but if it reaches the point that their outside interests exceed their interest in each other, then that points to a problem.

Career woman- In this day and time, it's virtually impossible for both NOT to have careers, but what he's saying is probably that her career shouldn't dictate her life. Otoh, his career shouldn't supercede his marriage either. If it does, it will create discontent on her part, and cause her to drift and gravitate toward substitutes for what was once passion.

Devotion-less woman- Imo, this is very important. Without devotion to one another (and it is a two-way street), the marriage has little chance of survival. Devotion is one of the most important traits that we can develop as humans.

So, in spite of many people making fun of these points, they are traits which make for good marriage partners, whether you're a man OR a woman.
 
It's not simply a matter of preferences; for a devout Christian it is a matter of commandment.

Even a devout Christian who is deeply in love with an unbeliever has a very high chance of breaking that commandment.

If you haven't ever been that deeply in love (and even many married people have not), no further explanation is possible. If you have, no further explanation should be necessary.
 
Even a devout Christian who is deeply in love with an unbeliever has a very high chance of breaking that commandment.

If you haven't ever been that deeply in love (and even many married people have not), no further explanation is possible. If you have, no further explanation should be necessary.


Bud, I know about love.

I also know that long-term, love alone isn't always enough.
 
Bud, I know about love.

I also know that long-term, love alone isn't always enough.

Religion used to be (and often still is) a key in arranged marriages. But when evolution decides it wants something else to happen, all bets are off.
 
Religion used to be (and often still is) a key in arranged marriages. But when evolution decides it wants something else to happen, all bets are off.



Evolution is not a sapient being that decides things.


And okay, fine it may happen.... but if the two people are highly incompatible in any way, it probably won't last. Having very different religions would fall under 'highly incompatible' if either is devout.

Not lasting is a problem, you see, in a religion where marriage is supposed to be for life.
 
Evolution is not a sapient being that decides things.
I'm sure you knew I was speaking metaphorically.

And okay, fine it may happen.... but if the two people are highly incompatible in any way, it probably won't last. Having very different religions would fall under 'highly incompatible' if either is devout.
If both are determined to stick to their different religions, yes. Otherwise, solving the compatibility problem is easy.

This may be one reason that much of the world's population now professes to have less religious faith than in the past.
 
I could give you my personal opinion, but it's very much at odds with the bible, so you would clearly claim that I'm wrong.

So the only purpose of this thread is to point out you are right and the pastor is wrong? I guess that should be obvious, since your thread title is a dishonest mischaracterization of the pastor's intention. It has nothing to do with worthiness.
 
It's not simply a matter of preferences; for a devout Christian it is a matter of commandment.

Why do you say that? Before it was scandalous to marry a Protestant if you were Catholic. Now it is mostly accepted. Interfaith marriages are not so uncommon either. I know many Jewish Christian couples, and I have seen Muslim Christian... :shrug:
 
Except for how we don't behead or stone people any more, and haven't for centuries...

You inject theme with poisons mostly now. Before it was hanging and electrocuting them to death. Some states want to bring back the firing squad.
 
...
If both are determined to stick to their different religions, yes. Otherwise, solving the compatibility problem is easy.

....



'Solving the compatibility problem is easy' unless 'both are determined to stick to their different religions', to use your own words.

Generally, people who really believe A to start with, don't change to B just because they are with someone who believes B. In other words, someone's profession of faith was probably more nominal than real.
 
Why do you say that? Before it was scandalous to marry a Protestant if you were Catholic. Now it is mostly accepted. Interfaith marriages are not so uncommon either. I know many Jewish Christian couples, and I have seen Muslim Christian... :shrug:


It has nothing to do with 'scandalous'. It has to do with what each person believes and whether those beliefs are compatible, or if one is going to change to accommodate the other.

In particular the Bible says Christians are not to get married to known non-Christians. That some people who claim to be Christian ignore this and do it anyway is no surprise; they are clearly either not devout, or more devoted to their emotions.


You inject theme with poisons mostly now. Before it was hanging and electrocuting them to death. Some states want to bring back the firing squad.


The State is not Christianity, and Christianity is not the State, and executions in America are not based on Biblical "law", nor is trial conducted by religious bodies on such basis.
 
Well, I didn't know that the bible forbids a Christian to marry a non Christian. I don't see anything wrong with marrying a non Christian personally. I would rather marry somebody who had faith in a god a was a member of some faith than marry an atheist.

The death penalty is popular in southern states where Christian Conservatives are the majority. The bible condones the death penalty and says an eye for an eye.

It has nothing to do with 'scandalous'. It has to do with what each person believes and whether those beliefs are compatible, or if one is going to change to accommodate the other.

In particular the Bible says Christians are not to get married to known non-Christians. That some people who claim to be Christian ignore this and do it anyway is no surprise; they are clearly either not devout, or more devoted to their emotions.





The State is not Christianity, and Christianity is not the State, and executions in America are not based on Biblical "law", nor is trial conducted by religious bodies on such basis.
 
Well, I didn't know that the bible forbids a Christian to marry a non Christian. I don't see anything wrong with marrying a non Christian personally. I would rather marry somebody who had faith in a god a was a member of some faith than marry an atheist.

The death penalty is popular in southern states where Christian Conservatives are the majority. The bible condones the death penalty and says an eye for an eye.


The death penalty is also popular in the Midwest, where this isn't a lot of religion going on other than Unitarian.


An eye for an eye is Old Testament. If we did capital crimes like was required in the OT, it would be very very hard indeed to get anyone condemned to the death penalty.

But regardless, my original point stands as a distinction: even highly "fundamentalist" Christians are not comparable to the Taliban, as they do not forbid girls to read, nor stone to death women who get raped, nor behead people for any of the numerous reasons the Taliban did.
 
Why do people bring up the OT like it doesn't apply??? Most Christians think Genesis applies. How can you pick and choose from the OT? I don't understand.

I would say that many Christians do support the death penalty. The states that are most liberal in application of the death penalty are in the south.

The death penalty is also popular in the Midwest, where this isn't a lot of religion going on other than Unitarian.


An eye for an eye is Old Testament. If we did capital crimes like was required in the OT, it would be very very hard indeed to get anyone condemned to the death penalty.

But regardless, my original point stands as a distinction: even highly "fundamentalist" Christians are not comparable to the Taliban, as they do not forbid girls to read, nor stone to death women who get raped, nor behead people for any of the numerous reasons the Taliban did.
 
Why do people bring up the OT like it doesn't apply??? Most Christians think Genesis applies. How can you pick and choose from the OT? I don't understand.

I would say that many Christians do support the death penalty. The states that are most liberal in application of the death penalty are in the south.


Sigh.

The OT is not irrelevant but it isn't LAW to us. Read Acts 10 and 15.

Yes many Christians support the DP for MURDER. Maybe Raping someone. But it isn't carried out by the Christian Religion under Christian "law", but by the State under State law which is not the same.

The Taliban stoned women who GOT raped, beheaded people for "speaking ill of the Prophet" among other things, and burned a bunch of schoolgirls alive to make their point about women not reading. Bit of a difference?!?!?!


You're American, your state has DP too, so don't act like it has nothing to do with you.
 
Last edited:
I am not arguing that Taliban and Christians are similar. I am just saying that many Christians support the death penalty.

As for the Old Testament issue, I was reading a little on it and it seems many Christians disagree on what should apply to them. It's highly confusing. It seems Catholics, Lutherans, etc. all have areas of disagreement...

I am still confused.

Christian views on the Old Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sigh.

The OT is not irrelevant but it isn't LAW to us. Read Acts 10 and 15.

Yes many Christians support the DP for MURDER. Maybe Raping someone. But it isn't carried out by the Christian Religion under Christian "law", but by the State under State law which is not the same.

The Taliban stoned women who GOT raped, beheaded people for "speaking ill of the Prophet" among other things, and burned a bunch of schoolgirls alive to make their point about women not reading. Bit of a difference?!?!?!


You're American, too, so don't act like it has nothing to do with you.
 
I am not arguing that Taliban and Christians are similar. I am just saying that many Christians support the death penalty.

As for the Old Testament issue, I was reading a little on it and it seems many Christians disagree on what should apply to them. It's highly confusing. It seems Catholics, Lutherans, etc. all have areas of disagreement...

I am still confused.

Christian views on the Old Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




My original point was in reply to someone who was comparing this pastor's advice to something the Taliban would like. That is why the comparison; that is the conversation you entered.
 
I am not arguing that Taliban and Christians are similar. I am just saying that many Christians support the death penalty.

As for the Old Testament issue, I was reading a little on it and it seems many Christians disagree on what should apply to them. It's highly confusing. It seems Catholics, Lutherans, etc. all have areas of disagreement...

I am still confused.

Christian views on the Old Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yes, there are differences of opinion between different denominations about how much of the OT applies to modern Gentile Christians. It is widely held that the dietary laws and ritual practices were no longer required due to Acts 10 and 15; there is some dispute over other OT related matters between different denominations however. Unravelling them all would be a large task I am not inclined to undertake this evening.
 
Okay well since we're going there...




To make it more biblical, in the bible it says gays must be stoned. Just a couple of years ago, Washington got gay marriage, and Oregon legalized pot. We have been reading the bible wrong the WHOLE Time.!
 
Acts 10 and 15. Not required of Gentile Christians. Try again.

What's not required, obedience to the Mosaic Laws? Why is Leviticus included in the Bible?
 
Old Testament vs New Testament and New Covenant. Jesus said that what you put into your mouth doesn't matter; it's what comes out of it that does.

Jesus said he didn't come to change 'one jot or tittle of the law'.
 
Luke 14: "And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?"

(grin!)
 
What's not required, obedience to the Mosaic Laws? Why is Leviticus included in the Bible?


Friend, if you want to argue theology, you should at least know the basics. This is basic. Acts 10 and 15 clearly indicate that Gentile Christians are not subject to much of OT law.

As for why is Leviticus in the Bible... it is part of the OT. You may as well ask why the stuff about Nazarite vows are in the Bible when there are no more Nazarites, and so on. It is "theological history", and "how we got here", not "current events".
 
Jesus said he didn't come to change 'one jot or tittle of the law'.


And he didn't. He made a New Covenant with humanity under Grace.

Those without Grace are still condemned under Law.
 
What's not required, obedience to the Mosaic Laws? Why is Leviticus included in the Bible?


In any case, this isn't particularly relevant to the OP, which is about the pastor's list regarding women that Christian men should not marry. As there is a warning in place about keeping on topic, we should not derail this thread in to yet another useless round of questions about shellfish, braiding hair, wearing different fabric or other things from the OT that have long been established, Scripturally, as not applying to Gentile Christians.
 
Back
Top Bottom