• 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]

RAMOSS said:
these days, praying for the Mets seems like lost cause.
Click to expand...

Easy does it you. They are going to have an awesome pitching staff this year. The Knicks actually won a game and I didn't pray at all. Imagine that.
 
JumpinJack said:
That sounds a lot like the stuff I heard this muslim/Islam priest saying on tv recently. I receive a channel that broadcasts muslim/Islam religious conferences and speeches and discussions. There's this one particular priest that has his own show.

This is the sort of stuff he says.

Puts it all in perspective, doesn't it? One extremist is much like another. ....
Click to expand...



Tell that to the women ISIS is currently beheading for the crime of being educated.
 
Grand Mal said:
Scanned it. I admit I was unfamiliar with much of it. I've never given much time to Acts or the Epistles.



Got that, and animals that had been sacrificed.



The gay thing is in Epistles, in a letter Paul wrote to someone (Romans? Corinthians?) expressing his opinions. There's nothing sacred about the Epistles and, for my money, it's a shame they were included in the Bible when other worthy texts were not. Paul, okay, Paul is maybe the main reason Christians didn't become just another sect of Judaism like the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes but he was never a divine source. Not many today, for example, would insist on he being right about the place of women in a marriage and insociety. If the laws in Leviticus don't apply to Christians and if women are acknowledged to have more rights than Paul would have them have, why are the proscriptions against homosexuality in Leviticus and the Epistles still insisted on?
And, in a way, this is relevant to the op because I suspect much of the attitude expressed by that 'pastor' were from Paul.
Click to expand...




Well, if you want to throw out Paul, help yourself.

Like 99% of Christiandom, I won't be joining you, as this is not a theologically sound course of action.
 
Goshin said:
Well, if you want to throw out Paul, help yourself.

Like 99% of Christiandom, I won't be joining you, as this is not a theologically sound course of action.
Click to expand...

Throw him out? Maybe not. Like I said, he played a very important role in early Christianity. He pretty much framed the church into something solid enough to stand on it's own. I sure don't consider him to be the last word on any particular subject, though, and I consider that Christian theology, when it concerns itself with anything after the resurrection, is only comparing opinions and admiring turns of phrase.
 
Grand Mal said:
Throw him out? Maybe not. Like I said, he played a very important role in early Christianity. He pretty much framed the church into something solid enough to stand on it's own. I sure don't consider him to be the last word on any particular subject, though, and I consider that Christian theology, when it concerns itself with anything after the resurrection, is only comparing opinions and admiring turns of phrase.
Click to expand...


Well, you're suggesting ignoring Paul whenever it suits your convenience, which again, isn't considered theologically sound by any respected scholars I am aware of.
 
Goshin said:
Well, you're suggesting ignoring Paul whenever it suits your convenience, which again, isn't considered theologically sound by any respected scholars I am aware of.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I pretty much do. Is he supposed to be infallible?
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah, I pretty much do. Is he supposed to be infallible?
Click to expand...


No. However, simply ignoring him whenever you find something he says disagreeable is not exactly sound theology either. :D


But why do you care? Pardon the presumption, but I don't get the impression that you are Christian offhand.
 
Goshin said:
No. However, simply ignoring him whenever you find something he says disagreeable is not exactly sound theology either. :D


But why do you care? Pardon the presumption, but I don't get the impression that you are Christian offhand.
Click to expand...

It's complicated. You wouldn't call me a Christian, that's pretty sure. Like I said, I don't have much time for Acts or the Epistles and I'm sure the God in the Gospels never told anyone to destroy a city, slaughtering every man, woman and child and everything on four legs. I don't believe in 'original sin' which takes the need for redemption off the table. The trinity? Iffy at best, and pretty irrelevant anyway. You tell me, is there enough left to make me a Christian?
 
Grand Mal said:
It's complicated. You wouldn't call me a Christian, that's pretty sure. Like I said, I don't have much time for Acts or the Epistles and I'm sure the God in the Gospels never told anyone to destroy a city, slaughtering every man, woman and child and everything on four legs. I don't believe in 'original sin' which takes the need for redemption off the table. The trinity? Iffy at best, and pretty irrelevant anyway. You tell me, is there enough left to make me a Christian?
Click to expand...


I am generally reluctant to 'tell' someone they are or are not a Christian, if they profess to be. I will go so far as to say that the bolded and underlined makes it seem improbable. A Deist or Unitarian perhaps, just at a guess, or a "theologically liberal" nonliteralist, possibly. It is pretty widely held though that "Christianity" is principally defined by a belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, and if you don't believe in a need for redemption then the label would seem like a poor fit. :shrug:


But only you know what is or isn't in your heart, so that is merely speculation on my part.
 
Goshin said:
I am generally reluctant to 'tell' someone they are or are not a Christian, if they profess to be. I will go so far as to say that the bolded and underlined makes it seem improbable. A Deist or Unitarian perhaps, just at a guess, or a "theologically liberal" nonliteralist, possibly. It is pretty widely held though that "Christianity" is principally defined by a belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, and if you don't believe in a need for redemption then the label would seem like a poor fit. :shrug:


But only you know what is or isn't in your heart, so that is merely speculation on my part.
Click to expand...

He could be Jewish.
 
SheWolf said:
Wow, that list is crazy ass stupid.

All 10 are absurd, but those are the funniest.
Click to expand...

The author is not writing an advisal to the general population. Instead, he specifically states that he is addressing a particular sub group (Christians). With the possible exception of point three, Older Woman (which the writer quantifies as a peference, not a prohibition), all the points mirror traditional Christian thought.

Though many of the points maybe absurd to the general population, they are not absurd when comapred to the teachings accepted by the target audience. Of course, not all members of the target audience may accept all the points. This does not mean, however, that they are "absurd" or "invalid". It just means that a particular member of that community has personally chosen to reject a few.
 
Goshin said:
Tell that to the women ISIS is currently beheading for the crime of being educated.
Click to expand...

They're not beheading women for being educated. Taliban throw acid in the faces of girls for going to school. And muslim terrorists blow up schools funded by westerners.

I wasn't talking about terrorism, though. My point was of the words being spoken by the "leaders" of religious groups. Very similar.
 
JumpinJack said:
They're not beheading women for being educated. Taliban throw acid in the faces of girls for going to school. And muslim terrorists blow up schools funded by westerners.

I wasn't talking about terrorism, though. My point was of the words being spoken by the "leaders" of religious groups. Very similar.
Click to expand...

Not even close.
 
Sooo... Yea. I think I'm going to go ahead and go over these in a bit more depth, from a slightly more secular and "down to Earth" point of view.

#1. The Unbeliever
#10. The Devotion-less Woman

If you're at all religious, or at all serious about it, these two should frankly be no-brainers. Honestly, the first one falls rather squarely in the "good idea" category even if you're not.

If you're going to commit to staying with someone for any extended period of time, in any kind of seriously romantic relationship (and you actually want that relationship to last, of course), mutually compatible values and moral codes are, at the very least, rather important, and, at worst, absolutely essential. Religious belief and devotion (or lack thereof) tends to be a rather clear indicator of such compatibility, on a cultural basis if nothing else.

You couldn't very well marry an Atheist as a Traditionalist Roman Catholic to expect them to adhere to Church's position on birth control without a fight, after all. The same is true where Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life issues are concerned.

I mean... You could certainly try. However, in all likelihood, it'd simply be a recipe for disaster. :shrug:

#2. The Divorcee
#3. The Older Woman

The first one should be pretty obvious. From a Christian perspective, divorce is regarded as being largely immoral. Frankly, even if you're not Christian, should you really be chomping at the bit to take a chance on someone who's screwed it all up once before already?

Granted, you shouldn't make judgement until you get to know the circumstances surrounding the divorce, and the character of the individual in question. However, it should still probably give you pause either way regardless.

Where the second one is concerned, as the pastor himself said, it's ultimately only a matter of preference. However, that being said, I think anyone who considers the prospect honestly would be hard pressed to deny that such a relationships often prove to be a bit more complicated than those with women in your own age group or younger.

I'd imagine that such a thing can present more than its share of difficulties all by itself.

#5. The Immodest Dresser
#6. The Gossiper/Slanderer
#7. The Wander-Luster

These strike me as being a warning against shallow, petty, immature, and unsettled personality types in general more than anything else. Again, that would basically seem to be common sense.

A little black dress on a date or night out on the town is fine, and so is the occasional snarky comment as an aside. However, would you really want to marry a woman who's going to be "at da club" on a regular to semi-regular basis, messing around with lord only knows who, and constantly talking trash about everyone she knows?

If you're the same way, maybe you'd take a chance on a girl like that. I sure as Hell wouldn't, however. Frankly, I don't think most people who actually want to "settle down" would either; especially not someone who happens to be religious.

#4. The Feminist
#5. The Childbirth Avoider
#6. The Career-first Woman

Eh. Admittedly, these are only really relevant to Christianity for the most part. They also depend upon the individual in question to a certain extent.

A moderate "feminist" in the sense of being an "independent" woman, who pushes for equality? Sure.

A hardcore ideological feminist? Eh... Not so much.

Likewise, there's a difference between a woman who merely works for a living, and one who basically puts her career above all else, including your marriage.

From a Christian perspective, you really shouldn't be getting married with the intention of never having children (assuming you are able) either.

If a non-Christian wants to take a chance on all of those things, however, more power to them, I suppose. :shrug:
 
DifferentDrummr said:
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.'

10 WOMEN CHRISTIAN MEN SHOULD NOT MARRY | NYCpastor.com
Click to expand...

Notice that the qualifier is, "CHRISTIAN" men.

Makes sense. Compatible couples are most likely to have a successful marriage.

Married couples are supposed to have teamwork - each have their own roles - aiming for the same goal.
Think of the two in a canoe. You'll never reach your destination if you're not paddling towards the same direction.

Religious belief is a big deal. It will be a bone of contention later on if the couple don't have the same values.
Children will become greatly affected if there is no consistency between parents. You end up with a hellish home life!

Of course feminism is out! Have you ever seen a kingdom successfully ruled by two kings? There can only be one president to a nation ( and he has his vice president) - otherwise it's an endless power-grab contention all the way!


Scriptural teachings are a major component of a Christian - so? What's the problem?

I'd understand all the complaints and whinings if the article says 10 Women MEN must not marry.

If women have a big problem with that part of a Christian life - then, don't get involved with a Christian man.
As simple as that.


What others don't get....

The Scriptures actually gives us a blueprint on how to have utopia in this world - if only everyone will heed it.
It even gives you tips how to have a happy marriage.
 
Last edited:
fschmidt said:
This list misses the most important item, The Slut. It's too bad that Christians don't have the guts to confront the evils of feminism head on.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the author had that - among other things - automatically fall under the feminist category?
"My body, my choice?" :)
 
Last edited:
I think, Christians who marry fellow-Christians, have a better chance of having an enduring, happy marriage.
Both have to take their Christianity seriously in the sense that they seriously aim to adhere to Christ's teachings.
 
tosca1 said:
Perhaps the author had that - among other things - automatically fall under the feminist category?
"My body, my choice?" :)
Click to expand...

I suppose being a slut could be considered applied feminism, but I think the author is clearly talking about theoretical feminism. I know that Christianity teaches women to obey their husbands, and that is fine. But I am not Christian, I follow the Old Testament which does not teach this. What is important to me is that spouses be considerate to each other, and feminism teaches women selfishness and inconsideration towards men which is why I oppose it. Sluts are completely selfish, shallow, and self-centered.
 
tosca1 said:
I think, Christians who marry fellow-Christians, have a better chance of having an enduring, happy marriage.
Both have to take their Christianity seriously in the sense that they seriously aim to adhere to Christ's teachings.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is better for spouses to share a religion that they take seriously. But that only matters if they really take the religion seriously, otherwise it doesn't matter whether they have the same religion or not.
 
While I do not agree with all of them I do agree with some of them.

1. The unbeliever: depending on the situation i will call this the "White Knight" syndrome for guys and the "I can fix him" for women. Unless God is in control of their lives there is little that you are going to do to fix the other person. the bible says not to be unequally yoked. The reason is that there can be a split in ideology of the two people that can cause
tension in marriage that is not normally there.

2. I don't agree with. of course i also don't believe in getting divorced unless circumstances are just in a life threatening situation for either people.

3. Older women again i disagree with however as the gap in age gets larger so does the interests of the people which can lead to issues.

4. I semi-agree. I like my wife that she is some what independent but as the husband it is my job to lead the family and according to the bible she is to respect
my authority in that manner. the word subject used is the greek word for respect. In return i am to love my wife even as Christ loved the church and gave his life for her.

5. You can look sexy without showing the world everything that you have. the fact that we have defined sexy to basically not showing your privates.
I don't want my wife showing her goods to someone else. she can look nice and sexy without doing that. what she has is for me to view not others.
women that do dress that way show a lack of respect for themselves. i know women that are sexy and don't have to bear it all to be that way either.

6. i hate gossip in general i think it is bad thing which is why i don't have facebook. i don't care what other people are doing in this lives or who they are complaining to other
people about their husbands wives or boyfriends/girlfriends.

7. i disagree with. you should not marry someone who does not have the same goals as you do. if you want kids and she doesn't probably not a good idea to get married even if
you love her. why? it will be forever a divide in the marriage. at some point the pressure to have a kid will end the marriage and hurt both people.

8. he has this totally wrong. I wouldn't want to marry a women that was constantly hanging out with other single guys all the time either. nor would i want to marry a
women that is never home but over at other guys places. this causes a lack of trust in the relationship. she should be wanting to spend time with me not other guys.

9. is the cause of the breakdown of the family unit in general. i also disagree in the fact that unfortunately it almost takes 2 people working in order to make it.
a lot of this could be corrected by better money management though. we finally got to the point that my wife doesn't have to work, but for the first 7 years of our marriage she did.

10. as a Christian i want my wife devoted to God. I know I cannot supply all of her needs and i am going to fail. Christ can fulfill those things for her.
I love the fact that my wife is as devoted to God that she is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom