Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The video is about marriages in the western society, not about church. So "if he was to approach it from a Christian perspective" does not apply, IMO."Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife."-1 Corinthians 7:24–27
The default is not singleness but that which The Lord has called you to. Singleness is better and preferred, however, both require grace in order to be established and sustained:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” -Matthew 19:9–12
I have seen the video and it was absolutely rough to watch given that he commended his Catholic upbringing based upon the successfulness of marriage rather than the truth marriage is based upon or it's reason for existence. The whole thing is laden with moral assumptions which treats certain morals as inherently true even though they can't be established within the paradigm the person is presenting. If he was to approach it from a Christian perspective there would have been no question of 'value' placed upon the successful of the marriage due to the biblical reason for & definition of marriage. It's not about gain.
Marriages in western society have their foundation in the Christian perspective. Where do you think our western morals are derived from? My friend we've been swimming in Christian waters since Christ's life, (edit: death), resurrection, ascension and the Great Commission. Outside of a transcendent source for morality morals can't be true; they remain only opinions/desires derived from feelings towards stimulus. Marriage outside of a transcendent covenant is merely a social contract, like any other business proposition.The video is bout marriages in the western society, not about church. So "if he was to approach it from a Christian perspective" does not apply, IMO.
It does not matter what they are derived from. Today's laws are not made by a church, but by secular people - state.Marriages in western society have their foundation in the Christian perspective. Where do you think our western morals are derived from? My friend we've been swimming in Christian waters since Christ's life, resurrection, ascension and the Great Commission. Outside of a transcendent source for morality morals can't be true; they remain only opinions. Marriage outside of a transcendent covenant is merely a social contract, like any other business proposition.
If you can't say why you're morals are true, then why should I follow them? It absolutely matters and you're not even reading or thinking through my responses. You're responding within the first minute based upon your gut feeling. Without a basis for marriage or why it should be followed the institution itself doesn't matter. Because it's based upon desire and self gain.It does not matter what they are derived from. Today's laws are not made by a catholic church, but by secular people.
This conversation is useless. In real life, nobody will talk philosophy or theology with you in a divorce court. Christian views are becoming exotic in this society, both in the popular culture and in laws.If you can't say why you're morals are true, then why should I follow them? It absolutely matters and you're not even reading or thinking through my responses. You're responding within the first minute based upon your gut feeling. Without a basis for marriage or why it should be followed the institution itself doesn't matter. Because it's based upon desire and self gain.
Laws can't be established independent of their moral reasons for being established. You can't establish moral truths independent of a transcendent source for morality or something that sets our parameters for behaviour. In order for laws to be established they need to be able to say why x is right or y is wrong. What you consider to be useless is the very foundation on which the things you consider to be useful are justified.This conversation is useless. In real life, nobody will talk philosophy or theology with you in a divorce court. Christian views are becoming exotic in this society, both in a popular culture and in laws.
Ok.Laws can't be established independent of their moral reasons for being established. You can't establish moral truths independent of a transcendent source for morality or something that sets our parameters for behaviour. In order for laws to be established they need to be able to say why x is right or y is wrong. What you consider to be useless is the very foundation on which the things you consider to be useful are justified.
You really need to stop and consider why your view of morality is true and why the things you disagree with are false. A secular paradigm can't establish any kind of morality that's authoritative over another person; in order to do so you need to be able to justify why your morals are true, which you can't do independent of a transcendent source for them. The entire reason I objected in the first place was because your definition of marriage as something judged by it's successfulness was wrong, which before you ask for a quotation of your definition again, is what you did in the post I quoted here: Marriage - it may not be worth it anymore (for men)
Sadly, there are men that are doing well for themselves, have a well off job, stable career, even homeowner ship...not in debt, etc.and can barely get a date or dealing with the flaking of women.It's called click-bait. They're looking for an emotional reaction.
Think about it. If more women went for genuinely high caliber guys, would there be much outrage? I don't think so. Men would take self-improvement seriously, treat others better, take care of themselves more, study harder etc. so they can become the best too. And there are lots of ways to shine. I don't see many men objecting when women fall for great guys who take care of themselves. But that's not what we're dealing with.
I once heard someone say that by dating someone for a year you get to see them in every season, and I think there is some wisdom in that. Not so much regarding seasons, but there are a lot of things that happen on an annual cycle, so dating for at least a year means you'll get to see what sort of impact those have on the other person (and they'll get to see the same for you).Oh, gosh lol.
I think a good rule of thumb for any couple is not to marry anyone you've been dating (not just known, but been seriously dating) for at least one year. I think most people who put up fronts and facades will have some cracks in them before that time is up. And it's important to be discerning and open-eyed the whole time. It's SO easy to ignore and overlook and justify red flags and warning signs when you're in the throes of infatuation and giddy, new love. It really is intoxicating and like a drug, and you don't think clearly.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? If couple are living together in a long-term relationship and have a family then the man does have responsibilities which he needs to be held accountable for.In a lot of countries, thanks to the 'feminist movement' some decades ago, you don't even need to marry, if a man stays in the same house sometimes with his girlfriend, even on and off for some time, the men may need to pay 'divorce', laws haven't catch up with current reality or have made things worse.
Though you are right that it does not apply to all marriages, the argument "its wrong to generalize" is not convincing.
If the risk is high, it does not matter that its not 100%. Would you eat something with a risk of getting cancer 40%? Would you happily go through a street with a 50% chance of being attacked? Would you buy a goods with such high price that its obviously not worth it, even though it has some few useful functions?
Instead, try to understand men (oh, you may even agree with them!) and if you have a solution to the problem (how to make marriages safer and more useful for them), you may offer it.
That's part of why divorce laws have changed over the years, to make it easier for women to get out of abusive relationships.If I were to weigh the benefits of marriage, or rather the adverse effects or marriage, women — particularly Christian women — are far worse off. How many times do we read about women in abusive marriages that are told not to divorce or separate, to pray for their husband, to remain dutiful at their own expense and sometimes their life.
That's part of why divorce laws have changed over the years, to make it easier for women to get out of abusive relationships.
And another reason why the laws have changed is that it's almost always the woman who's had to make sacrifices in her career in order to raise the kids, so it would be harder for her to get by on her own as a single parent, hence the need for child support.
So despite the narrative that gets put forward that the laws have changed to favour women because of that evil thing called feminism, they've actually changed in order to protect them and make things fairer.
After rushing into a relationship years ago, where I felt absolutely, completely certain that it was God's will, that this man was THE ONE God had for me, that all my prayers and soul-deep cries were being answered... only to have it all fall apart in the most excruciatingly painful, crushing, devastating way... I made a vow that I would never, ever consider marrying anyone without knowing them for at least one year. I wish I had known that long ago, and stuck to it. I had wanted to wait longer at the time, but I felt so much pressure from without, as well as from within myself, and I ignored the little whispers of doubt and hesitation. I'll never do that again.I once heard someone say that by dating someone for a year you get to see them in every season, and I think there is some wisdom in that. Not so much regarding seasons, but there are a lot of things that happen on an annual cycle, so dating for at least a year means you'll get to see what sort of impact those have on the other person (and they'll get to see the same for you).
Horrible, awful, godless women, maybe.yep todays women will treat their husbands bad, and cheat on them, then dump them, then get a new husband the week after. its not worth it.
See, contrary to popular belief, a godly Christian woman who is interested in marriage is NOT going to put materialism at the top of her list of what she desires in a man.Sadly, there are men that are doing well for themselves, have a well off job, stable career, even homeowner ship...not in debt, etc.and can barely get a date or dealing with the flaking of women.
To be fair, this is true to a point. I've witnessed firsthand the way men get absolutely gutted financially by ex's who don't actually need their money, but they want to punish the man as severely as possible, and they want the fattest possible monthly check they can squeeze out of him.That's part of why divorce laws have changed over the years, to make it easier for women to get out of abusive relationships.
And another reason why the laws have changed is that it's almost always the woman who's had to make sacrifices in her career in order to raise the kids, so it would be harder for her to get by on her own as a single parent, hence the need for child support.
So despite the narrative that gets put forward that the laws have changed to favour women because of that evil thing called feminism, they've actually changed in order to protect them and make things fairer.
Haha I know. Honestly it’s amazing how oblivious some folks are.Men post comments like the one above and then wonder why women don't go near them. Honestly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?