07 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy, if it's platonic?
If that is not possible then, yes, I would expect him to break off the relationship (now platonic) in the short to medium term.
By the way, what is the "RCIA programme"? I assume the "RC" stands for "Roman Catholic", but I can't figure out the rest.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by NordlysWhy, if it's platonic?
Why, if it's platonic?
By the way, what is the "RCIA programme"? I assume the "RC" stands for "Roman Catholic", but I can't figure out the rest.
Sorry - I was just using it in the sense of "sans sexual activity".
By breaking off the relationship, I do not mean the two still cannot be friends. I just mean they should not live together, share a mortgage etc. In other words, a reasonable distance should be maintained.
By the way, what is the "RCIA programme"? I assume the "RC" stands for "Roman Catholic", but I can't figure out the rest.
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.
http://www.udayton.edu/~campmin/rcia/becoming-a-catholic.htm
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAgain, why? Does it say anywhere in the bible that you should not have a platonic relationship?
By breaking off the relationship, I do not mean the two still cannot be friends. I just mean they should not live together, share a mortgage etc. In other words, a reasonable distance should be maintained.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by NordlysI'm not a sola scriptura Christian. 🙂
Again, why? Does it say anywhere in the bible that you should not have a platonic relationship?
Of course, there is no canonical reason why they shouldn't continue to live together in a platonic relationship. From a pastoral (i.e. practical) perspective, however, it is something I would advise against. There is the emotional baggage that both parties may have to deal with, considering they used to be in a relationship.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, they would still be in a relationship, just not a sexual one. I understand the practical perspective - I guess sex is too important to most people to be able to maintain a non-sexual relationship, especially with a partner they have had a sexual relationship with earlier. So I understand that you would advise them not to continue the relationship. However, you said in your original post that you would expect them not to continue it. That sounds to me as if you don't just see it as difficult, but actually wrong to live in a platonic relationship.
I'm not a sola scriptura Christian. 🙂
Of course, there is no canonical reason why they shouldn't continue to live together in a platonic relationship. From a pastoral (i.e. practical) perspective, however, it is something I would advise against. There is the emotional baggage that both parties may have to deal with, considering they used to be in a relationship.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by NordlysMy fault for being ambiguous. 🙂
Well, they would still be in a relationship, just not a sexual one. I understand the practical perspective - I guess sex is too important to most people to be able to maintain a non-sexual relationship, especially with a partner they have had a sexual relationship with earlier. So I understand that you would advise them not to continue the relationshi ...[text shortened]... s if you don't just see it as difficult, but actually wrong to live in a platonic relationship.
07 Mar 06
i do not think god has a problem with sex at all its mans corruption of this act not the act itself adam and eve never got married. but that is not to say they were not joined in gods eye. just chritians seem to call the first wedding is the one jesus turned water into wine but i totaly disagree with this. david (king of isreal) had many wives and concubines and Solomon came after a adulterous affair that david had the husband sent into battle and god got annoyed not at the sex but that he broke the law of god. i could go on and on including jacob abraham etc.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerOriginally posted by dj2becker
My guess would be that they have not given Him a chance to speak to them. The best place where they could feel God's conviction would be in a church where a servant of God preaches the truth.
It could also be that they were convicted but hardened their hearts.
My guess would be that they have not given Him a chance to speak to them.
Doesn't God always have the chance to speak to some one? I'm not saying that he violates their free will, but rather simply speaks to them.
It could also be that they were convicted but hardened their hearts.
Isn't God usually the one hardening peoples' hearts?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
07 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionDoesn't God always have the chance to speak to some one? I'm not saying that he violates their free will, but rather simply speaks to them.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]My guess would be that they have not given Him a chance to speak to them.
Doesn't God always have the chance to speak to some one? I'm not saying that he violates their free will, but rather simply speaks to them.
It could also be that they were convicted but hardened their hearts.
Isn't God usually the one hardening peoples' hearts?[/b]
Sure. I meant it in the sense that they probably did not listen to His voice and in a sense 'give Him a chance to speak'.
Isn't God usually the one hardening peoples' hearts?
Me thinks the individual has a great contribution to the process.