[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

You know it has to be more than this though; by your logic, any two random Christians of the opposite sex would be fit for marriage. After all, they'd both passionately seek the Lord, and as such could probably help each other with solving life's problems. But that's ridiculous -- Christianity does not mandate that all believers have identical and compatible personalities, and some would just not be fit to be a couple. There's a reason Christians don't just pick and choose from their singles groups when they're looking for a spouse.

Actually, you should remember that at the birth of Christianity, "choosing" a spouse was unheard of. Still in many countries today, even with Christianity present, the parents choosing the mate of their child is commonplace. The Bible really doesn't have much in the way of the "Christian process" of choosing a mate. Rather, the Bible states how two people should act once they are married.

While no, I don't think choosing a spouse randomly is a very good idea, but I don't think the Bible says much about choosing a mate. Christianity does not mandate that all believers have identical and compatible personalities, but it doesn't mandate anything else about choosing a mate either, except not to be unequally yoked with an unbeliever.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Actually, you should remember that at the birth of Christianity, "choosing" a spouse was unheard of. Still in many countries today, even with Christianity present, the parents choosing the mate of their child is commonplace. The Bible really doesn't have much in the way of the "Christian process" of choosing a mate. Rather, the Bible states how two people should act once they are married.

While no, I don't think choosing a spouse randomly is a very good idea, but I don't think the Bible says much about choosing a mate. Christianity does not mandate that all believers have identical and compatible personalities, but it doesn't mandate anything else about choosing a mate either, except not to be unequally yoked with an unbeliever.

This is true -- I wasn't trying to imply that the Bible does mandate a specific way of finding a compatible spouse, I was just making the point that for practical reasons, a mutual faith is not the only thing that should determine one's spouse. The fact is, it's a different culture today and spouses aren't always chosen for us anymore. The fact that the Bible doesn't give a "Christian process" for choosing a mate doesn't mean there isn't a smart way to go about it, and I think the smart way to go about it is to actually take the time to make sure you're marrying someone that you can actually spend the rest of your life with. In a day and age where we are free to choose our own husbands and wives, marrying based on nothing but shared faith and hoping for the best is a really bad idea.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Actually, you should remember that at the birth of Christianity, "choosing" a spouse was unheard of. Still in many countries today, even with Christianity present, the parents choosing the mate of their child is commonplace. The Bible really doesn't have much in the way of the "Christian process" of choosing a mate. Rather, the Bible states how two people should act once they are married.

I have to say that I find this a little sketchy historically. There definitely seems to be an idea of choosing a mate in certain passages that speak of getting married because of desire. It seems as if passages such as that indicate that it was not as foreign a concept as it would seem from what we now know. Note that Joseph had the option to divorce Mary quietly prior to marriage in the midst of their betrothal period.

While no, I don't think choosing a spouse randomly is a very good idea, but I don't think the Bible says much about choosing a mate. Christianity does not mandate that all believers have identical and compatible personalities, but it doesn't mandate anything else about choosing a mate either, except not to be unequally yoked with an unbeliever.

Well... even that assumes you are doing the picking. Also, Christianity and Judaism did not have strict arranged marriages as some people today claim. There are enough biblical counterexamples to show that there was a quite varied process in the OT especially. In the narratives we get a better picture of how things were, but in the Greco-Roman world, I doubt if marriage would seem so foreign. However, as early as Song of Songs, the element of romantic love was celebrated as an ideal basis for marriage...

[adamkaboom]

Just for the sake of asking... and because I would like to know what you think... Bill, do you think that there are exceptions to the rule? Say, well, I'll just use myself as an example. My girlfriend and I became very good friends and I would say knew eachother quite well before dating. We've now been dating almost 3 months... but would you say that the length of the friendship beforehand would have an effect on the length of the dating "needed" (for lack of a better word)?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by adamkaboom

Just for the sake of asking... and because I would like to know what you think... Bill, do you think that there are exceptions to the rule? Say, well, I'll just use myself as an example. My girlfriend and I became very good friends and I would say knew eachother quite well before dating. We've now been dating almost 3 months... but would you say that the length of the friendship beforehand would have an effect on the length of the dating "needed" (for lack of a better word)?

absolutely. Ill give an example of an extreme example of this from my extended family.

One of my cousins married a man she had been dating for under 3 months, with engagement at the 1 month mark, however, it was a matter that did not disturb me in the least as they had been very close friends for years. In fact, close to a decade. There were absolutely no surprises and they knew each others hopes, dreams, worries, responses to things, etc.

A long relationship beforehand I think absolutely can negate the need for a longer dating period because informally you have already found out what the longer time would be needed for.

Close relationships for several years can translate to a very good knowledge of the other person's personality, quirks, and such, often more accurate than dating because its not loaded with the attempts to impress.

[H.M. Murdock]

Originally Posted by wxman_matt

What do you believe is the shortest amount of time to date that you would say is wise before being engaged?

At most, 27 days.