 |
The Town Hall Archives
Ahh, the nostalgia.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mandy Straussberg
Three-year veteran
Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 616
Location: Out West
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
In reply to Continental Admiral... I deserved that.  I should have been more specific. I don't think people who get married before they're out of college show an inherent lack of trust in God. I think that people who date in highschool or before they're ready to be married show an inherent lack of trust in God. While I think it's wiser to wait until the guy is out of college, I know many people who made it work (getting married before the guy was out of college, that is). If the couple are spiritually and emotionally ready to be married, I think they can make an early marriage work.
Mandy |
|
 |
GusDeHaan
The TH. Inspector and etc.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 763
Location: Im so bright You need sunglasses.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
| I think your wrong. |
|
|
Tianlet
New Citizen
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 50
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
| GusDeHaan wrote: | | I think your wrong. |
 That's an interesting statement. Dunno what it means, but it's interesting.
Um, about the subject of dating vs. courtship. I use the word dating, but people who espouse the idea of courtship usually agree with what I mean. I'm not talking about two people alone with each other for long periods of time; however, I would really hate to have all my dates be sitting on the couch in our living room with Mom and Dad glaring at the pair of us, balefully watching our every move. That's no fun.
I mean doing fun activities, either in a group of young people with chaperones, or as a couple with chaperones. Here at my college, people seem to have a warped idea of a "date." It makes me laugh the way a couple will have lunch in the cafeteria together twice and they are considered officially dating. That's absurd. That's not a date!! But going out to a nice restaurant or movie w/ your parents or another (preferably young) married couple is ok. |
|
|
Arwen
Really Likes Personalized Ranks
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 1193
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
The Bible does not specifically address courtship or dating. It does mention ways unmarried men and women should treat each other, though. 1Corinthians 7:1 "...It is good for a man not to touch a woman," is a good example.
It matters not what name we put on it. The point is that no one should pursue a romantic relationship with out being ready for marriage. Then, God should be in the center of the relationship. |
|
|
Mandy Straussberg
Three-year veteran
Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 616
Location: Out West
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
| Tianlet wrote: | ...however, I would really hate to have all my dates be sitting on the couch in our living room with Mom and Dad glaring at the pair of us, balefully watching our every move. That's no fun.
|
Funny... I always found that thought very appealing... I've gotten to know more little, fun facts about my friends and their personalities (male and female) sitting on the couch in my living room, talking, playing games, etc... and my mom is always there. There's a comfort in having my parents around that I like. And also, sitting on his couch with his family sounds just as appealing; seeing how he treats his family in his home atmosphere and such...
Mandy |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
| Arwen wrote: | | The Bible does not specifically address courtship or dating. It does mention ways unmarried men and women should treat each other, though. 1Corinthians 7:1 "...It is good for a man not to touch a woman," is a good example. |
The Greek word translated "touch" is "haptomai," which Strong's defines as follows:
"Reflexive of G681; properly to attach oneself to, that is, to touch (in many implied relations): - touch."
In other words, it refers to marriage and to marital relations. Paul often wrote somewhat negatively about such things, noting that he personally didn't feel it necessary, but each time noted that it was perfectly godly, etc. What is clear is that I Cor 7:1 has nothing to do about literally touching someone. |
|
|
Laura Ingalls
New Citizen
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 73
Location: VA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
| Jared wrote: | | Laura Ingalls wrote: | | I believe that the Bible supports the idea of courtship, not dating. |
I don't recall any scripture that addresses the point. Could you cite any for me? |
I cannot cite a verse that says "Thou shalt court, not date," but I can ask you the same question. Can you cite a verse supporting dating?
The Bible's examples of fathers taking the responsibility are telling. I haven't seen any good examples of two young people going off and cultivating a relationship on their own.
As to your comment on my use of the word "courtship," our family's definition of the word is very similar to what hawkeye explained earlier.
I think if you study the Scripture the principles of courtship are upheld.
Anyway, I don't really care to get into a huge debate on this, I just wished to cast my vote on the courtship side.  |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
| Laura Ingalls wrote: | | I cannot cite a verse that says "Thou shalt court, not date," but I can ask you the same question. Can you cite a verse supporting dating? |
To begin with, if one believes something to be scripturally wrong, then one should be able to provide a passage of scripture making that point. If one denies that something is condemned in the Bible, one has no such burden of proof. The onus is on the person making the negative claim, for a statement that the Bible does not condemn something does not necessarily presuppose that it even mentions something. And it would be absurd to conclude that every matter not covered in scripture is ipso facto sinful.
I would submit, rather, that the Bible gives us all the information we need to know if an action is sinful or not. The Bible does not discuss courtship vs. dating, of course. Neither of these concepts existed at the time, and even if they did, the moral and ethical precepts of scripture are not concerned with wordplay.
The question, therefore, is not whether one "dates" or "courts" -- the words in and of themselves mean little -- but whether or not one glorifies God in one's actions.
To most people, and certainly by the dictionary, which seems a reasonable authority on the English language, "dating" is an overarching term which refers to any related matter, including what you would presumably call "courtship."
Now, if by courtship you mean a form of dating that adheres to a biblical code of moral principles, I have no objection to the locution and certainly none to the commitment to God's law, which must of course be preeminent in all. Where I tend to disagree is when artificial constructs are brought into the equation and taught as if they are on a level with that which is scripturally required.
Nothing in the Bible requires "betrothal" rather than engagement, or sets particular rules for it. The Bible does not address most of what people like Josh Harris espouse. When that happens, Christians must seek God's guidance and that of conscience, but it is a severe mistake to claim that one way is biblical or Christian and another is not if one lacks even an iota of scriptural support for one's position.
Things such as chaperoning have been mentioned in this thread as the only way to go -- perhaps as the "Christian" way to do things. Now, there are clearly reasons why people choose that route, and one can certainly see how it might make sense in some contexts, but it would be wrong, in my opinion, to suggest that it is the Christian way, or that it is biblically mandated, for it clearly is not.
Presumably, chaperoning is meant in part to guard against immoral behavior in dating / courting. Again, this might be a good function. However, the biblical requirement is to abstain from evil, not to have someone there with you. Now, if you prefer this, fine. If one's parents prefer or require this, especially if one is dating / courting at a younger age, then, again, fine. Just don't make this some sort of all-encompassing rule of proper behavior, as it is not.
(I'm not necessarily saying that you subscribe to the above, but many here do, and it serves as an acceptable example of what I'm trying to express.)
| Laura Ingalls wrote: | | The Bible's examples of fathers taking the responsibility are telling. I haven't seen any good examples of two young people going off and cultivating a relationship on their own. |
If I might request clarification: are you suggesting arranged marriages?
| Laura Ingalls wrote: | | I think if you study the Scripture the principles of courtship are upheld. |
The principles of morality throughout and a clear intent of glorifying God in all that one does, but not of "courtship" per se. There exists no set of rules and regulations on the matter, but rather a broad exposition on moral behavior. One is required to obey those laws; the minutiae does not rise to a scriptural level and as such should not be expounded upon as doctrine or as being biblically required. |
|
|
The Top Crusader
Job is to annoy Bennett Charles
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 2718
Location: Yarr.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
Bravo, Jared. :)
I'll add, that at age 22, I really do not care to have chaperones along on a date, nor do I see the need to. Really, at any age, if one can't control themselves without a chaperone, they shouldn't be dating/courting/kidnapping to begin with. |
|
|
Dr. Watson
New Citizen
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 47
Location: 221B Baker Street
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
Jared, my dear chap, a few of my thoughts:
| Jared wrote: | | And it would be absurd to conclude that every matter not covered in scripture is ipso facto sinful. |
You are absolutely correct. However, merely because something is not mentioned specifically in a direct command, doesn't necessarily mean it is condemned or supported: e.g. The Bible makes no mention of delibrately running red lights. Yet, principles in Scripture lead us to believe that we are to obey the laws of the country--the traffic laws.
Facetiousness aside, from the principles of Scripture we can deduce that courtship is indeed the best pattern for approaching marriage. Thus we see the examples of:
1) Abraham and Isaac. Here Abraham played the leading role in finding a suitable mate for his son. Isaac did not go to the movies with Rebecca in order to see if she was the right one for him. Nor did Abraham or Rebecca's father sit around and do nothing. They were actively involved in the marriage of their children.
2) Jacob and Laban. Despite the dubious character of both of them, Jacob apparently didn't question Laban's right to give his daughter(s) in marriage. It was a given that fathers have the authority to tell a suitor to leave.
3) Commands in Mosaic Law. In Numbers, it gives fathers the authority to anull a daughter's vow. Could this be applied to vows to a foolhardy engagement? Also in Exodus 22 it is clear that if a man rapes a girl, than the father has authority to allow or disallow them to get married.
4) Mary and Joseph. They were, according to Matthew, betrothed to one another. This apparently meant that though they were not married, they would have to obtain a divorce in order to seperate. Obviously, great stress was laid on the commitment to marry. This is in direct conflict with today's easy come/easy go dating mentality.
5) Commands in 1 Corinthians. Again, we see in 7:36-37 that a father has authority in giving his daughter away.
6) Commands in 1 Thessalonians 4. In verse 6, pertaining to sexual relations and immorality, it says, "...that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter..." Wait a second? Defraud? What does that mean? It means that we are not to 1) cheat someone out of their physical virginity, and 2) cheat someone out of their emotional virginity. Quite simply I mean this: dating robs the partners of their emotional purity by fostering a quasi-marriage between them. In other words, dating partners really grow emotional bonds that are as tight as a marriage. However, there is no commitment. Partners can breakup anytime they want to if they get fed up. When dating is boiled down, it is shown to be a training ground for divorce. When Billy dates Sally in the sixth grade, then Susy in the 9th, Jane in the junior year of high-school, and then asks Katherine to the prom, what mentality has he acquired? What will happen when he really marries Gloria? When a hiccup in the marriage occurs, he thinks to himself, "I dumped all those other girls, I can dump my wife as well."
Commitment always comes before intimacy. Unbelievers do not have a close personal relationship with God before deciding they want to become a Christian. Likewise, a man and woman should not get emotionally (and physically) intimate before they commit to marriage.
In regard to your question on "arranged marriage," such an idea is laughable. People seem to view this as a win-lose situation: either the girl rebels and elopes, or the cruel dad conducts an arranged marriage that the daughter hates. Neither one is Biblical. Rather, the father acts like a filter to screen bozos from approaching his daughter. When a suitable suitor is "screened" the daughter can then decide with her parents' guidance if he is Mr. Right.
Another point you brought up: you seem to think that courtship is a modern fad, and that Christians are jumping on the courtship bandwagon. This is far from the truth; as evidenced by the principles above, courtship (as previously defined) has been in place for centuries, dare I say millenia. Dating is the new kid on the block (to borrow the colloquialism), and has only exploded into popularity during the moral breakdowns of the 20th century. Sadly, it is accepted today as the norm. Girls are expected to have "boyfriends" and boys are expected to have "girlfriends."
| Jared wrote: | | The question, therefore, is not whether one "dates" or "courts" -- the words in and of themselves mean little -- but whether or not one glorifies God in one's actions. |
Thus I submit to you the question, Jared: In light of the evidence against dating, is dating glorifying to God? If so, please explain how you think dating is the wisest and most adherent to Biblical principles. Also, explain why you think courtship is defecient.
Cheerio
Doctor Watson |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
Memberlist
Log in