Christian and Non-believer dating
- Thread starter Longhorndanc
- Start date
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
THAT is going to be productive. True, but unproductive. Let's see how many irrelevant and condescending questions you get about the chapters and verses you think are being ignored.
I think I read somewhere recently that atheists are better versed in christian lore than people who claim to be practicing christians. Kinda a silly point, but it would lend credence to a fortuituous ignorance assertion.
I think I read somewhere recently that atheists are better versed in christian lore than people who claim to be practicing christians. Kinda a silly point, but it would lend credence to a fortuituous ignorance assertion.
To Longhorndanc
Is it possible to have a good relationship, as a christian, with a non believer, the answer is, absolutely. I've seen many successful relationships/marriages between christian and non-christian, or two non-christians.
However, the most ideal? Not if you follow scripture closely scripture (as a few others quoted) and in marriage.
If you're a christian (I'm assuming you are?, hence the question?), you believe God created marriage, and brought Adam and Eve together in this very first marriage. You also believe when scripture says "What God has brought together, LET NO MAN SEPERATE". Marriage is a covenant.
Scripture does a pretty good job of defining the roles of husband and wife in marriage in Eph 5:21-33 (none of these roles should be read as condescending or sexist, but rather submitting to one another AND to Christ, spiritual leadership, etc), as well as limiting the reasons for divorce/remarriage (unfaithfulness, death, and abandonment).
God also defines the marriage relationship between husband and wife as being analogous to the relationship between Christ and the Church. (John Piper has a good book/sermons on this)
Between two believers, this is a pretty strong foundation. However, if one (or both) parties are not embedded in scripture, there is greater probability of struggle, especially ending in divorce. If you are both rooted in scripture, you know divorce is not a solution, and you will seek whatever you need to resolve issues, and strengthen your marriage. You also understand the concept of extending Christ's grace onto each other, when the other person does something to hurt or offend you. (Forgiveness, forbearance)
Based off that, I encourage you to seek relationships where you share common ground. If God is #1 in your life, then that's probably something you want in common with your partner. If you are already in a relationship, then share the gospel with your partner.
Hope that helps!
Is it possible to have a good relationship, as a christian, with a non believer, the answer is, absolutely. I've seen many successful relationships/marriages between christian and non-christian, or two non-christians.
However, the most ideal? Not if you follow scripture closely scripture (as a few others quoted) and in marriage.
If you're a christian (I'm assuming you are?, hence the question?), you believe God created marriage, and brought Adam and Eve together in this very first marriage. You also believe when scripture says "What God has brought together, LET NO MAN SEPERATE". Marriage is a covenant.
Scripture does a pretty good job of defining the roles of husband and wife in marriage in Eph 5:21-33 (none of these roles should be read as condescending or sexist, but rather submitting to one another AND to Christ, spiritual leadership, etc), as well as limiting the reasons for divorce/remarriage (unfaithfulness, death, and abandonment).
God also defines the marriage relationship between husband and wife as being analogous to the relationship between Christ and the Church. (John Piper has a good book/sermons on this)
Between two believers, this is a pretty strong foundation. However, if one (or both) parties are not embedded in scripture, there is greater probability of struggle, especially ending in divorce. If you are both rooted in scripture, you know divorce is not a solution, and you will seek whatever you need to resolve issues, and strengthen your marriage. You also understand the concept of extending Christ's grace onto each other, when the other person does something to hurt or offend you. (Forgiveness, forbearance)
Based off that, I encourage you to seek relationships where you share common ground. If God is #1 in your life, then that's probably something you want in common with your partner. If you are already in a relationship, then share the gospel with your partner.
Hope that helps!
C
Coelacanth
Guest
XOVER,
Let's make sure we appreciate that quote in its full context:
Let's make sure we appreciate that quote in its full context:
C
Coelacanth
Guest
Dionysus,
Dion,
John Piper does a pretty good job of teaching what the Bible teaches about headship and submission. Submission is not written to supress women, but describe their spiritual and supportive role in the family.
You can read the details here, he can describe much better
The Beautiful Faith of Fearless Submission
Based on 1 Peter 3:1-6, there are a few things taught about submission:
John Piper does a pretty good job of teaching what the Bible teaches about headship and submission. Submission is not written to supress women, but describe their spiritual and supportive role in the family.
You can read the details here, he can describe much better
The Beautiful Faith of Fearless Submission
Based on 1 Peter 3:1-6, there are a few things taught about submission:
C
Coelacanth
Guest
Dionysus,
It occurs to me that you may say that I’m ignoring your argument, or, as mia1994 complained, that I’m being evasive. So let’s look at the substance of your text.
It occurs to me that you may say that I’m ignoring your argument, or, as mia1994 complained, that I’m being evasive. So let’s look at the substance of your text.
Excellent points, Dionysus. The Christian Bible is full of degrading references to marriage viz-a-viz the female partner. In point of fact, most Biblical references to marriage are examples of how not to select a wife or how not to treat a wife.The point I take from all this is that, in day-to-day life, the Christian Bible is relative. Christian morality is relative. It meant one thing back in ancient times, and quite another thing altogether in current society:
C
Coelacanth
Guest
XOVER,
It is not often that Coelacanth and I agree on matters of the Christian religion, but with respect to the veracity of the Bible we are in perfect harmony. Coelacanth believes there are portions of the Bible that cannot be trusted, and I agree there are portions of the Bible that cannot be trusted:
XOVER, I guess you're not aware of the secret memo that's been distributed telling Christians which parts of the bible to believe and which to ignore. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge now, maybe someone around here can get you a copy. I'd like to see it myself.
For example, I've heard that eating shrimp is OK even though it's forbidden in the bible (welcome news, I like me some shrimp), but I'm especially curious about stoning my kids when they're disobedient (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Sometimes I'm just not sure how to reprimand them, and it's occurred to me recently that a moderate stoning might be the ticket. You know, just a few small rocks to the torso.
Can someone let me know if this is biblically cool?
For example, I've heard that eating shrimp is OK even though it's forbidden in the bible (welcome news, I like me some shrimp), but I'm especially curious about stoning my kids when they're disobedient (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Sometimes I'm just not sure how to reprimand them, and it's occurred to me recently that a moderate stoning might be the ticket. You know, just a few small rocks to the torso.
Can someone let me know if this is biblically cool?
The problem with picking single verses out of the Bible, and finding fault is a pretty easy task to accomplish, considering you lose so much context in the process.
In Mark 16:18, AND the verses before, and after, Jesus is speaking to his apostles after the ressurection. Jesus spoke of miracles that people needed to see, from the disciples, to establish his church body, and to BELIEVE. Christ lived for 33ish years ... that's a pretty short time to begin establishing his church body. He needed his apostles to create the body and make disciples, just as he needed Paul to write the epistles to reinforce the churches in the cities he wrote to. There was an age where miracles were needed to confirm Jesus as the Son of God and his message.
Do we need miracles today, to believe in Christ? No .. we have the Bible as God's word. The 1 Corinthians 10 passage refers to people who decided to put Christ to the test by handling snakes on their own. This is a foolish way to try to determine if Christ was and is the Son of God. Hence, Paul discourages people to use this as a litmus test for Christ. People in the first few centuries A.D. did not have the New Testament in front of them to rely on.
When read in context, I don't believe it's contradictory.
Listen, it is super easy to attempt to disprove the Bible when you pick individual verses and try to find contradictions. I've known several people who've denied God by doing this, or over-researched and basically, read themselves into un-belief.
This is not unlike the political ads you see, of candidates bashing candidates. they take 1 or 2 lines out of an entire message or speech, and bash them on that, hoping the people are too ignorant to know what the entire speech was about, and instead ... rely on that one line to discredit the other candidate. CONTEXT IS KEY
Look ... we can sit here and spin our wheels about all of Jesus' teachings, or the rest of the new testament. We can go back and forth and try to discredit verses by attempting to find contradictions and trying to explain what is going on. We could pick apart each other's arguments for days, weeks, years.
But do you really think we'd change each others' minds?
The basic message of the Bible is that we all fall short of the glory of God. God shows in the O.T. that sin corrupted the Earth and people couldn't follow his "laws" without fail. O.T. followers needed to constantly offer sacrifices to correct their wrongs with God. God knew people needed an eternal sacrifice to absorb God's wrath and that sacrifice would be a mediator to bring God's people to Him. That sacrifice, in the Bible, was Jesus. If you trust in him, he has your back. the rest, are details.
You trust this, or you don't. But is there really a point to argue the authority or accuracy of the bible, if you choose not to trust even the basic message?
In Mark 16:18, AND the verses before, and after, Jesus is speaking to his apostles after the ressurection. Jesus spoke of miracles that people needed to see, from the disciples, to establish his church body, and to BELIEVE. Christ lived for 33ish years ... that's a pretty short time to begin establishing his church body. He needed his apostles to create the body and make disciples, just as he needed Paul to write the epistles to reinforce the churches in the cities he wrote to. There was an age where miracles were needed to confirm Jesus as the Son of God and his message.
Do we need miracles today, to believe in Christ? No .. we have the Bible as God's word. The 1 Corinthians 10 passage refers to people who decided to put Christ to the test by handling snakes on their own. This is a foolish way to try to determine if Christ was and is the Son of God. Hence, Paul discourages people to use this as a litmus test for Christ. People in the first few centuries A.D. did not have the New Testament in front of them to rely on.
When read in context, I don't believe it's contradictory.
Listen, it is super easy to attempt to disprove the Bible when you pick individual verses and try to find contradictions. I've known several people who've denied God by doing this, or over-researched and basically, read themselves into un-belief.
This is not unlike the political ads you see, of candidates bashing candidates. they take 1 or 2 lines out of an entire message or speech, and bash them on that, hoping the people are too ignorant to know what the entire speech was about, and instead ... rely on that one line to discredit the other candidate. CONTEXT IS KEY
Look ... we can sit here and spin our wheels about all of Jesus' teachings, or the rest of the new testament. We can go back and forth and try to discredit verses by attempting to find contradictions and trying to explain what is going on. We could pick apart each other's arguments for days, weeks, years.
But do you really think we'd change each others' minds?
The basic message of the Bible is that we all fall short of the glory of God. God shows in the O.T. that sin corrupted the Earth and people couldn't follow his "laws" without fail. O.T. followers needed to constantly offer sacrifices to correct their wrongs with God. God knew people needed an eternal sacrifice to absorb God's wrath and that sacrifice would be a mediator to bring God's people to Him. That sacrifice, in the Bible, was Jesus. If you trust in him, he has your back. the rest, are details.
You trust this, or you don't. But is there really a point to argue the authority or accuracy of the bible, if you choose not to trust even the basic message?
Xover, I don't think women are literally instructed to call their husbands "Master", nor are husbands taught to boss wives around. Ephesians does a good job of showing what husbands are to do too, and to be honest .. it's harder living up to the husband's role from first hand experience.
There are lots of good materials out there on the foundations of a strong, Christian marriage, and is the basis for a lot of pre-marital counseling.
If you talk to couples who've been through the pre-marital counseling process, and are still happily married and faithful followers of Christ, I can tell you that most of these couples will not argue against what is taught in Ephesians. My wife and I did a few months of studies and counseling before we got married and we're glad we have a biblical foundation to our marriage.
As far as Piper and relativism goes ... there are other pastors who teach the same thing. Pastors are here to help instruct the body and help them understand and interpret scripture. I don't think they are trying to mislead us.
There are lots of good materials out there on the foundations of a strong, Christian marriage, and is the basis for a lot of pre-marital counseling.
If you talk to couples who've been through the pre-marital counseling process, and are still happily married and faithful followers of Christ, I can tell you that most of these couples will not argue against what is taught in Ephesians. My wife and I did a few months of studies and counseling before we got married and we're glad we have a biblical foundation to our marriage.
As far as Piper and relativism goes ... there are other pastors who teach the same thing. Pastors are here to help instruct the body and help them understand and interpret scripture. I don't think they are trying to mislead us.
Piper's footwork with the idea of 'Submission' is laughable. He is trying to sidestep the connotations and denotations of the term which might make those portions of the Christian canon seem hopelessly outdated a/o offensive. He doesn't have the skill set for that kind of movement and what we instead get is a slightly watered down version of partnership with 'The Real Meaning of Submission' pasted clumsily onto the heading.
********. Granted, the portion that suggests that the woman is to use her talents to help the husband still smacks of something absurd in that there doesn't seem to be any need for the man to help the woman manifest her leadership qualities, etc., but the overall tilt is aimed at glossing over those aspects of Christian belief and practice which might drive away modern sensibilities, so the project involves making it sound as if the biblical voices being conjured actually saw and respected the kinds of equalization and relativism which is common in today's western world view.
Smoke and forgery.
********. Granted, the portion that suggests that the woman is to use her talents to help the husband still smacks of something absurd in that there doesn't seem to be any need for the man to help the woman manifest her leadership qualities, etc., but the overall tilt is aimed at glossing over those aspects of Christian belief and practice which might drive away modern sensibilities, so the project involves making it sound as if the biblical voices being conjured actually saw and respected the kinds of equalization and relativism which is common in today's western world view.
Smoke and forgery.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
XOVER,
First, I'm not sure that the doctrine of inerrant scripture is as simple an idea as people think. For instance, I believe that scripture is inerrant, but the scripture does not tell us exactly what constitutes the canon that we are to regard as scripture. So if I argue that the closing verses of Mark are inauthentic, then I do not argue against the doctrine of inerrant scripture; rather, I argue that it is not scripture in the first place.
Or, to say it differently, is it your position that if Christianity were true, then it would accept all proposed additions to the bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Judas, in spite of what the evidence might indicate about their authenticity?
You have generalized too far, of course, from my one example of the closing verses of Mark. But I probably do agree with you more than you might suspect, especially the part about questioning the authenticity of the bible. I, for one, think we owe it to our faith to make sure we get that part right. It is on the basis of this scrutiny that we determine (and have determined) which writings are, in fact, authentic and belong as part of the canon. On the whole, the canon that has existed for the last 1900 years has held up remarkably well, considering the difficulties inherent to such a project.
The bible is a collection of human writings, and the canon which we regard as authentic is absolutely the work of men. But saying that the canon is the work of humans, who are fallible, and also that, as such, it must be authenticated, does not lead to the conclusion that you offer in the following passage:
First, I'm not sure that the doctrine of inerrant scripture is as simple an idea as people think. For instance, I believe that scripture is inerrant, but the scripture does not tell us exactly what constitutes the canon that we are to regard as scripture. So if I argue that the closing verses of Mark are inauthentic, then I do not argue against the doctrine of inerrant scripture; rather, I argue that it is not scripture in the first place.
Or, to say it differently, is it your position that if Christianity were true, then it would accept all proposed additions to the bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Judas, in spite of what the evidence might indicate about their authenticity?
You have generalized too far, of course, from my one example of the closing verses of Mark. But I probably do agree with you more than you might suspect, especially the part about questioning the authenticity of the bible. I, for one, think we owe it to our faith to make sure we get that part right. It is on the basis of this scrutiny that we determine (and have determined) which writings are, in fact, authentic and belong as part of the canon. On the whole, the canon that has existed for the last 1900 years has held up remarkably well, considering the difficulties inherent to such a project.
The bible is a collection of human writings, and the canon which we regard as authentic is absolutely the work of men. But saying that the canon is the work of humans, who are fallible, and also that, as such, it must be authenticated, does not lead to the conclusion that you offer in the following passage:
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
