[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The Truth Will Prevail

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Advertise on this site
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Check out our friends at: /philosophy/ - Philosophy

File: 1442889743466.jpg (124.93 KB, 500x670, 50:67, dad I'm interracial.jpg)

 No.6414

Jesus gives a direct and binding injuction at Matthew 19:5 { ‘For this reason a man SHALL leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two SHALL become one flesh’}.

This command is so strong it is simply based on the ontological reality of being born Male and Female. The reason you HAVE to marry and reproduce is simply because you were made as such "from the beginning".

There is no way around Matthew 19:5. And what's stricter is his idea that you have to stick to one-wife only. Divorce is prohibited. To which his apostles gasp in shock. But Jesus gives them a way out, you can bypass the injunction to marry only if you are willing to castrate yourself and become a literal Eunuch, as he goes on to say.

 No.6421

File: 1442930521536.jpg (27.68 KB, 487x300, 487:300, Law_of_Abraham.jpg)

>And what's stricter is his idea that you have to stick to one-wife only.

Top kek. This is an joke

But seriously, this is a pretty extreme interpretation of the text. While I think that the spirit of your post is correct, it relies a lot on those particular words, shall, in that particular translation.

Could you make the same argument with a different translation?


 No.6457

What if noone want to marry me


 No.6839

>>6457

This


 No.6852

>>6414

>Implying any woman wants to marry me


 No.6862

>>6457

>What if noone want to marry me

Why is this the case?

Either youset your stndards too high superficially I mean, going for looks alone not character where you should have high standards or you are not worthy a women's time.

Think about it: A woman will only marry once, she has to pick the very best partner she could possibly get. Do you think that is you?

If yes, go on.

If no, do what you need to do to become this man.

>>6839

>>6852

This attitude is part of your problem.


 No.6864

>>6862

I don't think it's that simple.

>Either youset your stndards too high

What about not wanting to marry adulterous women?

What about women who don't want to have children?

What about women who don't want to marry at all?

What about different religions?

What about women you just can't develop feelings for? How would you even change that?

>Think about it: A woman will only marry once, she has to pick the very best partner she could possibly get. Do you think that is you?

Yes, you can try to improve yourself.

Be physically fit, have good hygiene, exhibit wisdom and values and so on.

The problem is that being the best partner is not a clear objective.

Everyone's trying to look for something else in a partner.

>If no, do what you need to do to become this man.

So should you assume a different personality? Even if it means betraying your values?

What if she is superficial? Do you undergo plastic surgery?

Should you have sex before marriage?

Relationships are not like money transactions.

There's not a price someone has to pay or a value you have to succeed.

It's like bartering where you're forever stuck with what you exchanged.

I'm not saying this to discourage anyone, but we have to be honest about the challenges to figure out how to overcome them.

Having said that a lot of the requirements seem to be more likely to be met when you search among fellow Christians.

Do you think it's a good idea to connect with the people of your church for this reason?

I'd like to get some advice myself.


 No.6865

>>6862

> just do it

I would but I have crippling social anxiety.


 No.6871

>>6864

>What about not wanting to marry adulterous women?

>

>What about women who don't want to have children?

>

>What about women who don't want to marry at all?

>

>What about different religions?

>

>What about women you just can't develop feelings for? How would you even change that?

See:

>>6862

> superficially I mean, going for looks alone not character where you should have high standards

Judging women according to their character and setting high standards here is good. Women will also realise this.

Setting (too) high standards on a matter of outward beauty, or hitting on a woman just because of that is not wise and will lead to suffering.

>The problem is that being the best partner is not a clear objective.

>Everyone's trying to look for something else in a partner.

Exactly.

Think about the woman you wish for. The one YOU wish for, your dream wife. Now imagine which man this woman would want. Become this man.

The objective is not to be liked by everyone, that's impossible. It is to attract the woman that you wish for.

>So should you assume a different personality?

Tricky one. Generally no, unless you have a bad personality anyway. So don' betray your values, but start fulfilling them if you haven't done this so far.

>What if she is superficial? Do you undergo plastic surgery?

If you want a superficial woman and are not naturally beautiful this is the way to go. However, if you want a superficial woman your problem is not that you have no gf, but that you want a superficial woman ;^)

>Should you have sex before marriage?

This is a matter of morals. If you're a catholic ie the answer is no.

>Do you think it's a good idea to connect with the people of your church for this reason?

A relationship is something social. So social interactions, at church for instance, are of course in favour of finding one.

If at your parish people share your values this is a good idea. ask the mormons ;^)

But pls don't make it too forced. Just go there without any expectation but good hope. Then only good can come of this.


 No.6873

File: 1444841897187.gif (2.96 MB, 350x349, 350:349, boyhugchicken.gif)

>>6865

>I would but I have crippling social anxiety.

Maybe rather this is your problem, and not not having a gf?

So you either have to work on your social anxiety, examine it, finding out where it comes from etc

or you have to face the fact that only women that are interested in men with social anxiety are an option for you.

I'd recommend the first one though.


 No.6874

>>6873

Why not both


 No.6904

Sorta related.

I talked to my priest about having children the other day. He said don't worry about it, it's not a sin to not have children. He called it a vocation that people are called to do.

If I remember I'll ask him this weekend about marriage. I suspect it's similar, but who knows.


 No.6906

>>6904

>If I remember I'll ask him this weekend about marriage. I suspect it's similar, but who knows.

I'd imagine he'd tell you the same thing. Goes without saying that if you're having kids, it ought to be within marriage, and its not for everyone. Likewise, I'd imagine he'd say marriage alone is not for everyone either, as Jesus said.


 No.6914

>>6904

> He called it a vocation that people are called to do.

I was always wonndering what this even means. Literally hearing the voice of God? Receiving a sign? Having a feeling?


 No.6918

>>6414

>And what's stricter is his idea that you have to stick to one-wife only.

Actually this is based on the qualifications to be a bishop or pastor of a church.

To be a pastor you must be a man of one wife, and you must also have children, and you must rule your house well. The reason given is because if you can't even rule your physically family well you won't be able to lead your spiritual family. So it specifies ONE wife for the pastor, I imagine also to prevent an abuse of power.


 No.6972

>>6914

The vocation call thing?


 No.7042

>>6972

Yes.


 No.7054

File: 1444935250600.jpg (188.83 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, 1432910118760.jpg)

>>6414

This ignores St. Paul and ignores that Jesus himself didn’t have a wife and wanted people to leave their homes to be a disciple. However, celibacy is not a dogma and married men can become priests without divorcing. However, if you are a disciple first, you cannot marry anymore. Married men do not have a forbidden in the Latin church because of heriditary law and the laity didn’t want priests to leach off the parish. In Eastern Orthodoxy, being unmarried still is necessary for monkhood and the episcopate, likewise unmarried men who have been ordained take a vow of celibacy and cannot marry anymore.

I think that married men will soon be permitted to become catholic priests again.

>if you are willing to castrate yourself and become a literal Eunuch, as he goes on to say

Like the literal circumcision you need to receive, right?

S A G E for unintellectual literalism


 No.7061

>>7042

Well, I'm guessing you just know.

The same way we know that God's real




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]