Spin off: Why I don't believe in deciding for my later teens whether to "date"......

[LisaNY]

I'm 35 and I spoke too generally. I should have said that none of my good friends had the experience of their potential-husband asking their father for permission to marry them and I felt the original poster's implication that it was still extremely common was too broad.

 

 

Just to clarify what I was personally saying, I never meant to imply that it was still extremely common. The word extremely never came up in my post. What I did say was that it was still a custom, meaning that it was still done, even in this day and age. I shared stories confirming it in another post. (Honestly, I was trying to post so that it didn't come across as a universal rule, but obviously, I did not make my meaning clear.)

[Michelle in MO]

That's beautiful!

 

I think a couple of things are getting lost here, not the least of which is logic.

 

I'm not advocating for dating.

I'm not suggesting the current behavioral trend for dating is a good thing.

I'm not "for" premarital sex/physical intimacy.

I'm not against older teens deciding to court (in whatever form they decide).

I'm not supporting or suggesting promiscuity.

The fact that I do not support imposing a no dating rule on older teens does not suggest a lack of other boundaries with them.

 

here, Joanne: I would agree with everything you stated here.

 

We know a family which incorporates many principles of courtship very successfully into their family, and several of their children are happily married and have done quite well.

 

I have read an account in a magazine (this was some years ago) about a young couple who were courting. By the time they got married, according to their account, it almost seemed like the parents were putting the young couple together. It seemed rather weird to me and left me feeling uncomfortable.

 

I would say that we as a family have very similar goals to the ones you've stated above. I also think you've done a great job leading this discussion! :)

[Greta]

AMEN! That's what it's about -- giving your future spouse your WHOLE heart, not just whatever's left of it by the time you get to the altar.

 

I am so grateful that neither my son nor my daughter-in-law loved anyone other than each other.

 

My nephew used to tell girls (who pursued him relentlessly) that he wanted to stand at the altar and see his bride with all of his heart intact...not a parade of girls with pieces of his heart. (And he just celebrated his 2nd anniversary with one very blessed woman.)

 

I think I messed up the multi-quotes thing, but aside from that, I think I have do disagree with the sentiment being expressed here, if I am understanding it correctly to be that marriage to a first love is somehow better or more pure than marriage to a second or third love.

 

I am my dh's second love (he is my first love), but that doesn't mean that I have any less of his heart than he does of mine. He still gave his whole, complete, intact heart to me when we fell in love. He says that he is much happier with me than he ever was with her. My brother also married his second love, and I am so glad of it. She is so much better for him than his first was. Yes, his first broke his heart. But it healed, and he gave it all to his wife. They are very happy together and everyone who knows my brother's first love is glad he found his second.

[5kidsforME]

[/color][/color]

 

I think this is a pretty extreme use of scripture considering the society and culture of the Israelites compared to Western society and culture.

 

 

 

Not really, I don't know *anyone* my age (even the Fundamentalists) whose husbands asked permission first.

 

My husband did, my sisters husband did, my brother asked his FIL, my BIL asked my sil's father. We range in age from 32-38.

[Sharon in SC]

I don't believe she implied that at all.

 

Nor do I. She simply stated that there are families who do adopt a scriptural approach to life who are thriving (with no mention at all of folks who approach life with other contrasting philosophies).

[Sharon in SC]

Her quote that it's BETTER to ALWAYS follow scripture did imply that, to me. Other people may have a different read on it. And nearly *everyone* picks and chooses which scriptures to follow or we wouldn't be eating cheeseburgers or wearing a cotton/linen blend dress.

 

I guess I didn't perceive the proposed implication because she qualified that statement with "scripturally, it is always better...."

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Nor do I. She simply stated that there are families who do adopt a scriptural approach to life who are thriving (with no mention at all of folks who approach life with other contrasting philosophies).

 

I think when a person posts from a non-religious POV, then the reply is, "Well, this is what God says," or "This is what Scripture says, and that's always best," then what is the non-religious person supposed to say? The "God says it, so there" answer just shuts down the discussion. Saying at least, "Well, I base my viewpoint on the Bible, so for me, this is where the crux of the decision lies" is Oh So Different than saying, "Scripturally, it is always better to..." Well, ok. That's great. Now when we say, "um, ok, but your Scripture isn't my last word on the subject," we look like we're disrespectful or somehow not good enough, or something. And yes, in case you're wondering, it DOES feel that way, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Anyway, peace. Just wanted to add my voice to the "feeling preached to" crowd. (Vinegar doesn't catch many flies, though I suppose one could argue the whole "stumbling stone and rock of offense" viewpoint, and I suppose that does work for some. Doesn't work for me, though.)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I guess I didn't perceive the proposed implication because she qualified that statement with "scripturally, it is always better...."

 

Does this sound better? Worse? -- "The Bible says it is always better..."

 

That's how I read it. And I walked away saying, "Ok, once again, conversation stopped in its tracks. *shrug*"

 

If there was a qualifier intended, then I didn't pick up on it. A qualifier never stops conversation, IMO.

 

ETA: And look, you don't have to answer this, even though it was in the form of a question. I wasn't trying to challenge anybody, just giving my opinion.

[Sharon in SC]

I think when a person posts from a non-religious POV, then the reply is, "Well, this is what God says," or "This is what Scripture says, and that's always best," then what is the non-religious person supposed to say? The "God says it, so there" answer just shuts down the discussion. Saying at least, "Well, I base my viewpoint on the Bible, so for me, this is where the crux of the decision lies" is Oh So Different than saying, "Scripturally, it is always better to..." Well, ok. That's great. Now when we say, "um, ok, but your Scripture isn't my last word on the subject," we look like we're disrespectful or somehow not good enough, or something. And yes, in case you're wondering, it DOES feel that way, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Anyway, peace. Just wanted to add my voice to the "feeling preached to" crowd. (Vinegar doesn't catch many flies, though I suppose one could argue the whole "stumbling stone and rock of offense" viewpoint, and I suppose that does work for some. Doesn't work for me, though.)

 

Wow. Honestly, I choose to believe that this thread is becoming a beautiful example of how the written word of cyberspace can fall so very short in its ability to convey the intended message and also how perception is everything in terms of one's reality. :001_huh:

 

There is one particular spot where I was actually stunned by a poster's perception of another. (I choose not to site that particular example). Even as I read your response to my statement, I almost feel I'm in the twilight zone. :tongue_smilie: You wrote:

I think when a person posts from a non-religious POV, then the reply is, "Well, this is what God says," or "This is what Scripture says, and that's always best," then what is the non-religious person supposed to say?

But, that's not how I read Peek's statement at all. I understood her to say that (paraphrased), according to scripture, the best thing to do is to follow scripture. That's a far cry from, "this is what scripture says, and that's always best."

 

I, personally, feel Peek did a good job of qualifying most everything she said (just how many times can you say the same thing?) with something to the effect, "I am approaching this purely from a biblical point of view." Again, you wrote:

Saying at least, "Well, I base my viewpoint on the Bible, so for me, this is where the crux of the decision lies" is Oh So Different than saying, "Scripturally, it is always better to..."

Truly, I feel Peek did express herself more like your former example. I'm open, though, to any example you may have where she sounded more like the latter. Again, unfortunately, at times, perception is reality. I just don't hear the same tone from her that you are expressing here. Is it possible that I'm listening with biased ears? Possibly. But, I honestly don't think so. I think it boils down more to, well, just good 'ole unbiased perception. :blink:

 

On more thought on the note of believers citing their scriptural POV: Those from a non-religious POV have oftentimes done the same. That's what makes the world go 'round in cyberworld communications. We each are able to share from what particular worldview we're operating in an effort to keep the lines of communication functional. Unfortunately, again, I think those lines can get clogged sometimes by the inherent weakness of trying to communicate via this venue. :sad:

 

Now when we say, "um, ok, but your Scripture isn't my last word on the subject," we look like we're disrespectful or somehow not good enough, or something. And yes, in case you're wondering, it DOES feel that way, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Pam, I don't doubt this for a minute and for those times when someone has been left feeling that way, even if inadvertently, I am sorry that that became the ultimate sentiment for I suspect that was never the intention of the poster.

 

Just wanted to add my voice to the "feeling preached to" crowd. (Vinegar doesn't catch many flies, though I suppose one could argue the whole "stumbling stone and rock of offense" viewpoint, and I suppose that does work for some. Doesn't work for me, though.

I can appreciate that you may feel preached to at times by the zeal with which a believer expresses herself. Would it surprise you to know that a believer can feel equally overwhelmed by the zeal with which non-believers have been known to express themselves? Vinegar is vinegar, no matter the camp from which it exudes. :tongue_smilie: Suffice it to say, we are all challenged to temper our words with grace when expressing things that are so near and dear to our heart. Sometimes we are successful. Sometimes we are not. Personally, I choose to believe the speaker (believer or no) means well and does not *intend* to come across as a bully. :001_smile:

 

In any case, I am thankful that a general spirit of "let's learn what we can from one another" typically prevails on these boards and I'm thankful you felt free to respond to me the way that you did! :)

 

On a MUCH lighter note, would you believe that the liriope you blessed me with two summers ago now are thriving beautifully to include some that remain in that mailbox you gave me to pack them home in!!! :D

[Sharon in SC]

Does this sound better? Worse? -- "The Bible says it is always better..."

 

That's how I read it. And I walked away saying, "Ok, once again, conversation stopped in its tracks. *shrug*"

 

If there was a qualifier intended, then I didn't pick up on it. A qualifier never stops conversation, IMO.

 

ETA: And look, you don't have to answer this, even though it was in the form of a question. I wasn't trying to challenge anybody, just giving my opinion.

 

Yep, I'm convinced -we're dealing with perception issues (see my other posted response to you). :001_smile: Your perception is your reality and mine is mine, yes? I read the word "scripturally" as a very careful qualifier, you read it as anything but.....unfortunately, your perception left you viewing the conversation stymied in one fell swoop. :(

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess I didn't perceive the proposed implication because she qualified that statement with "scripturally, it is always better...."

 

Except that I am a Christian as is Joanne and Peek's implication was that if we didn't agree with her then we weren't living by Scripture. That's what shut the conversation down.

[Sharon in SC]

Except that I am a Christian as is Joanne and Peek's implication was that if we didn't agree with her then we weren't living by Scripture. That's what shut the conversation down.

 

Ah. Thank you for this. It helps me to better understand why you were responding the way that you were. I'm not sure I, personally, would have carried the same perception (can't really know except that I walk in those shoes) but what you've said helps me to, again, better understand some of your responses. Blessings, Sharon

[Peek a Boo]

Um.....before you go agreeing with me you might want to know that I was actually saying that about the way you were posting. I thought you were showing bad form. I just needed to clarify that, because I felt that point might have been missed.

 

oh, I'm sure there were more than just you that consider it "bad form" :)

I was simply agreeing w/ your actual statement that the conversation had gone down the toilet.

 

What gets ME perturbed is that someone questions something or says something is insensitive or manipulative, then refuses to answer WHY those things are "insensitive" or "manipulative." That's the whine. Logic and discussion dictate a bit more sharing of actual information --Board rules remind us that we simply can not be assuming things.

 

Pam, i absolutely understand that if we're looking at a subject from two completely opposite sides and no common ground, there really is no discussion to be had --it is merely a diverse sharing of views. Considering the OP included a faith aspect, IN MY VERY FIRST LINES i clarified that i was responding to that. This wasn't a "I'm not a Christian, so don't throw that scripture stuff at me" kinda thing. I clarified that upfront, based on how Joanne phrased her post. I don't think I was vague or manipulative in what I was trying to say. Some people will feel preached to/ belittled--well, that goes both ways.

 

and as Mrs. Mungo stated [which is what i said in one of my very earliest posts] --NONE OF US LIVE COMPLETELY BY SCRIPTURE. I thought that was pretty darn clear too. we SHOULD, but we don't.

It's not whether you agree w/ ME, but with scripture.

 

It is precisely because you profess to BE a Christian that a lack of scriptural offering here is distressing.

 

As a Christian, If you think the scripture itself is wrong, then feel free to share that view.

As a Christian, If you think we SHOULDn't live by scripture, feel free to explain why.

If you are a Christian, but then take issue w/ scripture being quoted, it is courteous to your brothers and sisters in Christ to clarify WHY or simply acknowledge that it just isn't your doctrine and let others discuss the issue.

If indeed you think i am absolutely wrong in my interpretation and am leading others down a path that could damage them spiritually, then I would appreciate some Christian guidance and to see someone show me scripturally how that's wrong. i CAN be convinced I'm wrong, ya know ;)

 

what shuts down the conversation is when one refuses to actually DISCUSS the topic at hand --not one time has Joanne or Mrs. Mungo offered any kind of scriptural counsel in opposition to what I --and others-- have said. If you take issue w/ the scriptural interpretation, then feel free to set it right. If it just doesn't apply to you, then move on.

 

It's not I who says that if you don't live by God's standards as shown in the Bible then you aren't living by God's standards. That's just the way it is. That's not my implication, that's God's Word. That applies to us ALL on more topics than whether our older teens should date.

 

Now if you take issue w/ what the Bible says, feel free to mention that in your opinion.

[Peek a Boo]

I think I have do disagree with the sentiment being expressed here, if I am understanding it correctly to be that marriage to a first love is somehow better or more pure than marriage to a second or third love.

 

 

Actually, the biggest point I was trying to make as a Christian is that regardless how well a situation ends up working out, Scripture-- the Bible-- God's Word-- tells us that things are always better His way. And scripturally, we are to work on that "one man/ one woman /for life" focus, regardless the anecdotal cultural evidence we have that shows an unscriptural situation "succeeding." I hope that makes sense.......

There are some scriptures that address divorce, widows, etc, but that wasn't the topic *here*.

 

i understand how someone who does not hold the Bible to be God's Word [or dismisses portions of it] can disagree with that. So what y'all decide on doing isn't my issue. It's how God's Word is -or is not- put forth that has me concerned.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Actually, the biggest point I was trying to make as a Christian is that regardless how well a situation ends up working out, Scripture-- the Bible-- God's Word-- tells us that things are always better His way. And scripturally, we are to work on that "one man/ one woman /for life" focus, regardless the anecdotal cultural evidence we have that shows an unscriptural situation "succeeding." I hope that makes sense.......

There are some scriptures that address divorce, widows, etc, but that wasn't the topic *here*.

 

i understand how someone who does not hold the Bible to be God's Word [or dismisses portions of it] can disagree with that. So what y'all decide on doing isn't my issue. It's how God's Word is -or is not- put forth that has me concerned.

 

You know what? The epiphany I had a little bit ago is that you use the words "we" and "us" in your replies when you mean "we Christians," but how I *expect* to see it is "I" and "me" and "those who believe as I do." The "we" and "us" throws me off, and I start saying, "Um, no, it's like saying, 'Ok, let's take our medicine,' when clearly you mean 'You take YOUR medicine.'"

 

Once again, we aren't communicating, but please understand that I don't sit around and get all offended when people speak their POV. And I conflict with Phred about stuff like this just as much as I conflict with you. You just can't overgeneralize like that with your words and *particularly* when your meaning is not even close to intending to overgeneralize.

 

If you can think of it as iron sharpening iron -- I think maybe some of us are just trying to refine/sharpen your *point*. And to help you see how your words and phrasing choices are obfuscating communication, since you clearly intend NOT to be saying what we are hearing.

[Kelli in TN]

 

I am my dh's second love (he is my first love), but that doesn't mean that I have any less of his heart than he does of mine. He still gave his whole, complete, intact heart to me when we fell in love. He says that he is much happier with me than he ever was with her. My brother also married his second love, and I am so glad of it. She is so much better for him than his first was. Yes, his first broke his heart. But it healed, and he gave it all to his wife. They are very happy together and everyone who knows my brother's first love is glad he found his second.

 

No, no, no. That is NOT what I meant.

 

I meant that because they came into their marriage without memories of other people, they did not have the "stuff" to work through that some couples have. And not every couple who enters marriage after having been in love with someone in the past will have "stuff" to work through, but many do.

 

I am just delighted at the way she is a perfect match to him and he is a perfect match for him and they found each other just at the right time in life and the stars aligned and all that.

 

But I never meant to imply that a marriage cannot be built on true love, or pure love, or complete love, if either partner has been in love before.

 

Please forgive me if I came across that way. An internet message board is not always the easiest medium in which to communicate. I wish we could all just meet for coffee.

[Sharon in SC]

An internet message board is not always the easiest medium in which to communicate. I wish we could all just meet for coffee.

 

Hear, Hear! :001_smile: (I like White Chocolate Mocha or Caramel Cafe)

[Mekanamom]

It's not I who says that if you don't live by God's standards as shown in the Bible then you aren't living by God's standards. That's just the way it is. That's not my implication, that's God's Word. That applies to us ALL on more topics than whether our older teens should date.

 

 

You mean it applies to all Christians, correct?

 

I'm not arguing with you here... actually it brings up a reason why I (as a non-Christian) feel that dating is an important thing for older teens to do, IF they are so inclined.

 

I dated through high school and early college years. I was not looking for a marriage partner, but I was learning about being in relationships. I feel I did learn a lot and gained experience that made choosing a life partner more of an informed decision. (Not saying that's the best way for everyone, just the way that worked for me.) I was responsible about my dating choices.

 

At one point, I dated a Christian guy, who was very nice. Without going into details, at one point I made a comment that our relationship wasn't sinful. His response shocked me. He said that indeed, it was a sinful relationship, but it was ok because we could repent later. :001_huh:

 

Oh boy, I lost all respect for that guy instantly. If he really believed that we were being sinful, not only was he being disrespectful to me, but also to himself AND to God. It did not matter at all that I wasn't Christian and didn't believe we were sinning. It mattered that he was and he did. I would have respected him a whole lot more if he was living by the standards he believed were right.

 

So. I'm glad, personally, that I dated several different people with different perspectives. I gained something valuable from each relationship. I broadened my own perspectives. My experiences helped me decide what I felt was important in a life partner, and I am very satisfied with my marriage and my DH.

 

I'm with Joanne on the dating thing... I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to encourage dating. But I don't see it as a bad thing for older teens to do either (if they want to date) as long as they're honest about living the way they feel is right.

[Greta]

Oh, gosh, Kelli, there's nothing to forgive! I wasn't upset or offended or anything like that. And if I misinterpreted, then I'm sure the fault is as much my own as anyone else's. But thank you for clarifying. I think now I better understand what you mean.

[MyThreeSons]

At our church in CA, the Courtship model was used by all of the families. Some, however, used a very strict, legalistic method, while others were much more concerned with the heart issues than all the regulations.

 

Just before we moved away, there were two weddings. The one where the parents had been more concerned with heart issues was beautiful and fun. The groom shared from his heart about the courting process and how it had been such a blessing for the two of them to get to know each other's family. The one where the parents had been caught up in the rules and regulations was bittersweet, because the couple had confessed before the congregation that they had fallen into sin and she was pregnant.

 

I have seen so many examples of kids looking good on the outside while rebelling on the inside. As with discipline, our sons' dating guidelines are centered on the heart, not outward behavior.

[Peek a Boo]

You know what? The epiphany I had a little bit ago is that you use the words "we" and "us" in your replies when you mean "we Christians," but how I *expect* to see it is "I" and "me" and "those who believe as I do." The "we" and "us" throws me off, and I start saying, "Um, no, it's like saying, 'Ok, let's take our medicine,' when clearly you mean 'You take YOUR medicine.'"

 

well, I understand your epiphany, but i made clear in the first line of my first post in this thread that i was recounting the faith aspect, according to scripture. So of course anything I say after that is already in that particular context. But I'm glad it's being worked out :)

 

One of the things I like about discussing things w/ Phred [since you bring him up, lol] is that he at least continues the discussion till we are crystal clear on where each other stands. We might not agree, but if we question each other long enough we keep working out where we're coming from. I might not agree w/ his idea of 'person' and life issues, but i can respect that he is at least willing to lay out what his beliefs are and respond to questions about them. THAT's what a discussion is.

 

 

I did want to add something else--

Being a Christian is not dependent on following scripture to a T.

Being a Christian is not about doing all the right things.

You can still be a Christian and have a different understanding of scripture.

You can still be a Christian and do something contrary to scripture.

There are not "levels" of Christianity. One is not "more worthy" than another.

But scripture says what it says.

[Joanne]

What gets ME perturbed is that someone questions something or says something is insensitive or manipulative, then refuses to answer WHY those things are "insensitive" or "manipulative." That's the whine. Logic and discussion dictate a bit more sharing of actual information --Board rules remind us that we simply can not be assuming things.

 

what shuts down the conversation is when one refuses to actually DISCUSS the topic at hand --not one time has Joanne or Mrs. Mungo offered any kind of scriptural counsel in opposition to what I --and others-- have said. If you take issue w/ the scriptural interpretation, then feel free to set it right. If it just doesn't apply to you, then move on.

 

I'm more than a bit perturbed at this, Peek. I did not enter into the "scripture" rabbit trail. I did not present the OP from a scriptural or world view. I did not challenge, debate, discuss any particular scriptural perspective. I am not required to "go there" with you or anyone simply because the converstation I started morphed there.

 

Indeed, I said I do not see scriptural support for *dating* or *not dating*. I did say I find the rhertoric around some of it a ........ stretch and that a courting/not dating has become another area in which extra Biblical info is given credence as if it IS supported by scripture.

 

I have conducted myself cordially, appropriately and productively in this thread and I resent the assertion otherwise.

[Peek a Boo]

You mean it applies to all Christians, correct?

 

 

well, since you asked, technically --scripturally-- no, it applies to everyone.

God is God and will judge everyone.

But it's not for me to judge anyone else's eternal place. :)

 

I constantly tell my atheist friend that my faith is not determined by her actions or beliefs. But if she --or you-- asks a question, I am bound to answer it according to scripture.

[Kay in Cal]

So.... does the whole courtship thing assume early marriage? I can understand the reasons for delaying dating until college, but I still don't understand the practicality of courtship. I married young (22, we met at 19 in college), but I don't assume my sons will. I had dated before marriage, so had my dh, and neither of us seem any worse for the wear, so to speak.

 

My brothers are 26 and 29 now, both single. Should men of that age not date? My sister in law married last year at age 35--should she never have dated? How does "courtship" work if one is an adult in the world? Isn't that just dating by another name?

[Melinda in VT]

Again, I must rely on what Scripture says in regard to this. "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife." This does not indicate that parental involvement has long ceased by the time they marry. An involved parent isn't necessarily a controlling/domineering one. It is still a custom for a young man to ask a father for his daughter's hand in marriage, no? :001_smile:

 

 

I read this scripture as an indication of the priority a marriage has among other relationships. In other words, a husband's responsibility to his wife is greater than his responsibility to his parents.

 

I don't see that it says anything about how involved one's parents should be in the selection of one's spouse, or in one's dating habits or lack thereof.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

One of the things I like about discussing things w/ Phred [since you bring him up, lol] is that he at least continues the discussion till we are crystal clear on where each other stands. We might not agree, but if we question each other long enough we keep working out where we're coming from. I might not agree w/ his idea of 'person' and life issues, but i can respect that he is at least willing to lay out what his beliefs are and respond to questions about them. THAT's what a discussion is.

 

 

 

 

Well, sometimes I have to end a discussion because I need to get my blood pressure under control. I try to respond to questions about my beliefs and about where I'm coming from, but sometimes I cannot as yet articulate those beliefs. So I lack that capacity for your definition of discussion.

 

Your post in the subthread above clarified for me that you do indeed mean that your scripture applies to everyone, not just Christians, which is what I read and what I took exception to. But it's cool. I just won't enter those particular discussions with you. It is, as ever, foolish for me to do so.

[Peek a Boo]

I read this scripture as an indication of the priority a marriage has among other relationships. In other words, a husband's responsibility to his wife is greater than his responsibility to his parents.

 

I don't see that it says anything about how involved one's parents should be in the selection of one's spouse, or in one's dating habits or lack thereof.

 

I tend to agree with you.

There's plenty of scriptural advice for seeking counsel from fellow Believers on such a decision as choosing a mate tho, starting w/ that of the parents who raised you. I'm not totally into the typical ideas of courtship, so I can't speak yet as to HOW involved a parent SHOULD be.

 

One's dating habits would be tied in to how God tells us to consider sexual purity and intimate relationships. Again --I have not yet formed our our own solid opinions on the details, but there's quite a bit Biblically to guide one away from the recreational/temporal dating that is so prevalent in the culture.

[Peek a Boo]

Well, sometimes I have to end a discussion because I need to get my blood pressure under control. I try to respond to questions about my beliefs and about where I'm coming from, but sometimes I cannot as yet articulate those beliefs. So I lack that capacity for your definition of discussion.

 

Your post in the subthread above clarified for me that you do indeed mean that your scripture applies to everyone, not just Christians, which is what I read and what I took exception to. But it's cool. I just won't enter those particular discussions with you. It is, as ever, foolish for me to do so.

 

 

Well, it's not my Scripture ;)

Basic Literary analysis of the Bible tells us that God will judge all people. Lots of people take exception to that --we're warned scripturally about that too. it also tells us that there are some to whom the Word is simply folly, and we can't do much about that. So i don't. Unless someone comes right out and asks. Which is why I'm cool carrying on a conversation w/ a faith component or without one --and I think I've shown that I can certainly do that. I try to stay pretty clear on the frame of reference of a discussion when it involves such a diverse group like we have here.

 

and i totally understand that sometimes we need to leave a discussion. That's fine too. We're all people and we all have Real lives. It's one thing to simply not be able to articulate a thought --even Phred has said he was still working on some thoughts. It's another to complain about a post and then refuse --REFUSE-- to offer any feedback w/ substance. That's merely whining. "Gee Pam --that was quite an insensitive comment you made there. You sure implied that I wasn't worth talking to. But I sure ain't gonna tell you why."

 

Personally, i think you've done an excellent job articulating what you believe and don't believe. I'm sure you have lots of things you still need to work out --as we all do. i do agree that it is foolish to enter a discussion where you will only find yourself getting unnecessarily riled about what is being discussed. i avoid a lot of those too.

 

have a nice day-

[Peek a Boo]

So.... does the whole courtship thing assume early marriage? I can understand the reasons for delaying dating until college, but I still don't understand the practicality of courtship. I married young (22, we met at 19 in college), but I don't assume my sons will. I had dated before marriage, so had my dh, and neither of us seem any worse for the wear, so to speak.

 

My brothers are 26 and 29 now, both single. Should men of that age not date? My sister in law married last year at age 35--should she never have dated? How does "courtship" work if one is an adult in the world? Isn't that just dating by another name?

 

[considering the previous posts, I'm going to clarify for any newcomers to the discussion that my response is from a Biblical POV, but the thread itself is open to anyone sharing their own views too]

 

There are as many versions of "courtship" as there are families that claim to be following a courtship model. I've spoken to lots of families w/ older teens and married children, but only read a few books on the matter. i do think Josh Harris' book offers a good analysis of courtship.

 

yes, courtship is just a version of dating. kind of.

 

courting:

2 a: to seek the affections of; especially : to seek to win a pledge of marriage from

 

In short, most "dating" vs "courtship" models draw a distinction between people just dating recreationally [get together alone for a good time and see if there are any sparks, THEN we'll consider marriage, maybe, if we feel like it] vs courtship dating once you have already gotten to know that person in a group atmosphere and consider them a serious possibility for a mate. Courtships can, of course, be broken off, but the basics tend to dictate that before courtship dating one has already gotten to know a person and their family pretty well OUTSIDE a dating atmosphere w/ no expectations of a relationship. That looks different for different families.

 

Most courtship families that I've spoken with would suggest that one who is single --of any age-- focus on doing what God is calling them to do, wherever they are. Focus on being a solid Christian and doing what you can to solidify yourSELF. Is one ready for marriage? If they aren't, now is the time to find out why and take practical steps to make oneself ready ..... IF they so choose to look for a mate.

 

Whether one is any worse for the wear doesn't dictate whether God's Ideal is worth consideration or not. Otherwise I'd have plenty of anecdotal stuff to preach from a pulpit that could make the Bible OBSOLETE, right?

My oldest is only 14, and he is NOT a girl-crazy kind of kid. yet? ;)

I have decided to find those families that have followed a Christian model of courtship where the kids exude a heart of faith and married children are showing the fruit of the spirit that i hope to see in my own children. My posts here have been reflective of what I have observed scripturally and anecdotally.