Who NOT to have a relationship with *Co-worker *Your boss *Neighbor *A client * THOT you met at a bar/club *A friends girl *Anyone at church *Anyones wife *Your second cousin *Sexbots *Anyone from the liquor store *Low-hanging fruit *Anyone medicated *Anyone when ur lonely
-
-
You cannot use scripture bombs with people who dont view it as authoritative. A Christian's first mistake. Although all truth is God's truth, what you posted is insignificant to many.
-
But a Christian girl views it as truth. That's the whole point I'm making. Why should I not marry a girl who believes that passage to be TRUTH?
-
NOT in the same church. You will have the EXACT issues that everyone has and even more complicated ones with her and especially if SHTF.
-
That makes ancient wisdom all the more useful. The longer its been around, the more likely it is to be viable (
#Lindy). You can go read the Laws of Manu on the parts where it talks about a "well-guarded woman" and it still holds true today. It tells you how to not get cucked. -
The problem comes when you have individuals that don't know the history and lack a deep scholarly understanding of tradition and rituals. That's when things go really awry. How many Christians today can read their Bible in Greek or Latin and understand its history? Not many.
-
I do and know it well. I use to say I know the scriptures in three languages... But cant live it in one
-
And there's a lot of wisdom carried in it that's disobeyed or taken in ways that make no sense. One of my best friends is learning to read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. He talks about how it's being used incorrectly all the time (I'm no expert on the Bible, can't comment).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You’re correct about the scriptures containing RP truths, the problem isn’t in the genuine faith (yet), it’s in the church culture that influences doctrine that eventually alters faith.
-
kaBAM! Another truthbomb.
-
I could go down this rabbit hole and agree. All groups run into this problem. My issue with the article is you were attacking "the modern church" without defining it. Meaning my church falls under that. However, your tweets are attacking doctrine. With that I agree.
-
I would call it "challenging" or "countering"... But not attacking. I think proper language keeps dialogue moving I know. Ive regrettfully shut down some dialogue here with a handful of emotional responses. Dont "raise your voice"... Improve your argument.
-
Ahaha I did the same thing. This thread got heated for a moment. I do appreciate the dialogue. I've got a lot to think about. I misunderstood the original tweet as, don't marry a Christian woman. You were saying be wary of group thinking and baggage that comes w/ that. No?
-
Projection and not listening or trying to understand aside this was a decent convo with solid points. I think fishers point went over many heads. If women are only women why is it that gender dynamics was better when Christianity was the law of the land?
-
This is precisely what I was saying. You worded it much better than I was able to.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.