KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: The christian community and dowry.

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 07944 :  The christian community and dowry.

We all know that dowry is illegal. In various bible teaching sessions, we also teach against it and generally express 'belief' that God brings two souls together. Then why do the brethren of the old nad new today still indicate the need for it? today, it might not be monetary benefits but it could be in kind. Surprisingly and unfortunately, both parties agree to this 'tradition'.

My question and topic for discussion is, how many of us in this forum or community has seen this? How many of us believe this is right? How many of us, if we have the boldness, confess that it was done in our case? How many of us can step forward and help eradicate this evil within our community? 

Post by : paizanjoe  View Profile    since : 1 Mar 2016


Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 1 Mar 2016 3:16:50 PM Close

Dear ‘paizanjoe,’

You wrote, “My question and topic for discussion is, how many of us in this forum or community has seen this? How many of us believe this is right? How many of us, if we have the boldness, confess that it was done in our case? How many of us can step forward and help eradicate this evil within our community?” The first step to show the boldness, confession, stepping forward to eradicate, etc. should be done using the person’s full name, as it is officially known. Otherwise, the person is not showing his boldness in confessing to eradicate by stepping forward.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 1 Mar 2016 4:02:59 PM Close

Mr. Koshy,

Firstly, I do not understand, what you mean by 'using one's full name?', Do you mean that I have to disclose my name or do you want people/me to disclose people who have taken it and done it? Let’s be specific here. If you are asking me if I have done it. Thankfully by His grace, I don't subscribe to the traditional values that is there with the 'Christian' community, so have not, and strongly oppose anyone who does so. 

Secondly, this is a forum. Not a personal discussion. My topic is not to pinpoint and 'micro-manage' what is a traditional evil. But to get a consensus or understanding on what people in Christendom generally would do. Everywhere, tradition and old practices can only be eliminated when we couple it with grace and season it with salt in words, counsel and actions. If you say, step forward, start show boldness and show it all. I would come back to you and say, it is my freedom in Christ to approach a subject matter as the spirit in me deems fit. If I want to keep a broader horizon by giving people anonymity in this discussion, it is because I have the understanding that it needs to be done and not many people are happy disclosing their identities because of many said reasons.

Thirdly, if you have a relevant point on how you could be of labour to the Lord, it would be great premise to the believers and one moved by the spirit, to express his opinion on the subject and not start trivial and vain discussions. In today's scenario, we do not gain and but have and continue to lose lives by our action, words and writings. We have accountability to all of it when we meet the Maker.

Finally, I have seen some of the 'posts' that you have had as discussion with people in forums. Once you judge a brother on his knowledge and pass various 'questionable' remarks, it is unwise to use the term: Shalom Malekim!!!  to end the conversation. This is not me correcting or judging you, but mentioning how Matthew 12:36 holds true in all our lives, whether spoken or written.

Regards,

Joe

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 1 Mar 2016 7:17:15 PM Close

Dear Joe,

I am asking this question being neutral to the issue of dowry - why do you think dowry is "evil" that should be "eradicated"? In answering this question, could you please study how David defined 'evil' in Ps 51:4?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 9:42:14 AM Close

Dear Rick,

I have not read your post, I have just started using the forum and have only gone through the recent ones. I have only highlighted your points and given my line of thought. And they are in italics. I have excluded my draft, since it would have been confusing to the reader.

It was not my premise that I came from which you understood of.  Why is the context misguided? The details mentioned in all the verses are from the Bible. Did you find any specific verse that deals with ‘dowry’ in the New Testament; if so please write down the verse/verses.

In the new testament, there is no mention or law regarding ‘dowry’. There are only two laws which Christ gave, Mathew 22: 37-40. When you look at these two laws, all laws revolve from that. If as a believer, you love your neighbour, in our case here, the brother or sister. When you go to the prospective bride’s house for their daughter’s hand – ideally there should not be indication of any want. Or if we are adamant of the tradition, then we follow as shown in the Old testament with all the laws. It is proof that if one abides by these two commandments, topics such as this would have a negligible impact in the lives of the brethren.

You wrote “Let me put it in perspective:”

How you concluded that I am not a Jew or Israelite?  Is there any way you could find out anyone as belonging to “House of Israel” or “House of Judah” or Israelite? What is an : “eye for eye”? I think you are referring to Matthew 5:38 tracing back to Deuteronomy 19:21

(And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:21))

Do you know those verses speak about punishment for false witnessing? In all the cases in verses( Exo. 21:24, Lev. 24:20, and Deut. 19:21) those instructions were given as a rule for guidance to the Judges. In the judicial cases as defined in the Scriptures, it is not unjust. Jesus did not find fault with the instructions which are to be applied to Magistrates.

Why did you find it as wrong?

Ok. Let me ask you then, are you a Jew?

Yes, it is possible to find out if a person is an Israelite by birth. I think you have not heard of DNA testing? And there are various other tools available in the world. But that is not the point.

When I mentioned the eye for an eye context of the law, I was giving an example of the law of Israel as stated in the Old Testament. My point of view is that – if we are going for Israel’s law which was given by God through Moses.

Then we should follow the entire law that is there and not bits and parts. For e.g.  We should keep the Sabbath, we should go to the temple (which is not there anymore), hold sacrifices and all the other rituals and traditions that are mentioned in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

Even the writer in Hebrews has explained it clearly how the law is no more applicable after the arrival of Christ. And you still want to hold on to the Old Testament in spite of presumably not being a Jew?

You state I feel it is wrong. I didn’t say or write that. Christ didn’t find the law wrong. Of course, he would not. He was with the Father when the law was developed and given to Moses. And the laws where given because of the ‘hardness of their hearts’. But when you take the laws and retribution. I think you need to go back to the gospels and read what he stated (Mathew 5:38 – 41) or in the case of forgiveness (Matthew 18: 21-22). Even the letters by Paul, Paul was grieved when brothers took matters such that these between brothers to court, when and if the brothers and sisters where controlled by the spirit, could have been amicably resolved within the church or between them. (I Corinthians 6:1).

Here, Apostle Paul is warning us to be cautious against robbing of spiritual blessings by someone teaching us to depend on doctrines that are not of Christ and of salvation. He was also against depending on Greek Philosophy that prevailed in regions around Colossae.

So is dowry a doctrine of Christ? Is keeping days, celebrating birthdays, celebrating new year and what not, a mandate from heaven? Yes, the Grecian philosophy could have influenced the believers then. But are we not also influenced by the traditions and philosophies of our forefathers when they came from different backgrounds? Haven’t we seen how these traditions influenced, mixed and convulsed to bring out the Roman Catholic Church?

For e.g. When a person from another religion or denomination or any one for that matter comes to the knowledge and faith. He/She has an unexplainable happiness and joy in Christ. Heaven rejoices and it is evident in him/her. Since we are in the topic of dowry, we will deal with that, if he is an older brother and his family has come to faith and wishes his daughter to married to someone of the same faith and spirit. Which statement is better according to you:

1. Brother, hope you have made ‘arrangements’ for your daughter?

2. Brother, hope all is well, not to worry about anything. We are in Christ.

You decide.

Then you would know if the brother who is founded earlier in Christ than the new brother is a spiritual blessing or robbing some one of the spiritual blessing. We are to stay away from traditions that are of the past. We are to uphold one another. (Galatians 6:1). We should not be stumbling block. Apostle Paul talks about this with regards to food in Romans 14:20 which could be applied also to the fact of dowry. Don’t become one.

Here, Apostle Paul is asking us to follow the traditions that are taught to us by the Word or by his epistle. He is not saying to discard the traditions his epistle taught. How do you justify that Old Testament laws are not applicable, or Christ did not quote Old Testament verses, or we discard Old Testament and read only the New Testament. There are hundreds of verses in the New Testament that trace back to Old Testament.

When did I imply that we should discard the traditions of the apostles? My reference verse clearly states we should hold onto what they taught.

With regards to your point of Old Testament laws, if they are applicable. Then you should be circumcised and follow the Sabbath. That would take us back to the contention mentioned in the Acts of Apostle with the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. It was so strong that even Apostle Peter, the rock of Christ faltered and had Paul admonishing him over it. True, there are hundreds of verses from the Old Testament. Christ came to fulfil all that was written in the Law and the Prophets. All of it was pointing to him even where it is not explicitly prophetic in nature. He accomplishes what the Law required. (Matthew 5:17-18). And whatever the law stated once fulfilled is now closed. (Romans 10:4). It is time for us to cast out the old leaven and the burden of the law and carry the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)

This link shows the speed limits in most of the cities India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_India

Did you ever violate speed limits in your area? Please be honest. If so did you transgress the law of the land where you live?  If so did you transgress the command in Romans 13:1-14? I hope you are a good Christian and did not break any law in India.

Here is where you put a question, which I will answer. In India, I have been stop by the cops 7 times. I can also state the dates and the occasion for the fault. In those 7 times, I have:

}1.     Paid the fine four times and got the receipt

2.     Three times, didn’t have to pay the fine since I insisted on paying for it and the police who expected a handout felt it was no use arguing with me

3.     One time, when I was not at fault, argued and then used my ‘press’ status to deal with the situation.

So I can say that I am pretty much a law abiding citizen in all accounts. But that is not the topic. If you want to ask me if I have taken a dowry. I can boldly in Christ say no. again. I believe in the first ‘tradition’. (Genesis 2.24.) where other traditions do not matter. And on top of it, my other half came to the faith from another denomination where her family still is. Reason for not looking in our community? I could give you the example of Christ and the Pharisees, but then the topic would digress. and fyi the tradition of dowry is only practiced these days in limited parts of the world, for that matter, even arranged marriage. I want to see one Kerala brother going and admonishing a European or American brother on his 'love marriage'. Why? cause it is not in their custom to have arranged marriages, anymore.

Lastly to this point, If I can follow the law of the land and believe that it is for justice and it is expected as in Romans to be followed. I think believers around the world and in India can do so. There is where you set the example and testimony.

 

The word “dowry” is misleading. What is wrong if a parent wants to give his daughter his inheritance that goes ultimately to his daughter and his son-in-law? Although it is not for quarrel, but his daughter would have always a say in small petty altercations. She will not be ill-treated by her husband. If she goes to husband’s house empty handed, she would be like a slave.  I don’t consider it as “evil”

Please write why we should not quote Old Testament verses. What is the “New Covenant”?  What commandments are available in New Testament for a Christian to follow?  Are you following these two commandments meticulously?

How is the word dowry misleading? Br. Koshy has already given the definition. It pretty much self-explanatory.

There is of course nothing wrong in a daughter getting an inheritance. But it is the will of the parents to provide her with it. It should not be an insistence from the in laws. And one should not covet other’s possession. You asked about the commandment in the earlier context. This is where it all boils down to one commandment. (Romans 13:9)

‘Your point she will not be ill-treated if she goes empty handed’. I hope brother you know what you have written. Because if you are a believer, how can you mistreat a person who comes to your house. Especially when the person is a wife? How is a wife a slave? Just because she didn’t bring anything? What about the poor brother who might not have anything to give his daughter anything? Since you harp and hold on to the Old testament, should not the man provide the dowry? Isn’t there ‘hundreds of verses’ (as you put it) there which states that? Even Br Koshy gave references to it. You have to understand. Man leaves his father, mother and home and joins his wife. It is not the other way around. (Ephesians 5:31)

If you don’t consider it as an evil. It is your belief. I believe it is illegal. The law of the land says so, even if it is implied indirectly.

The new covenant and the new commandment came from Christ. What is the new covenant? The new covenant was demonstrated and sealed in Christ, when climbed on the cross. (Hebrews 9:15) and through the ministry of righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:1-11). Anything beyond Christ is not of God. Anything before it, was for its fulfilment as stated in my earlier dispensation.

The question of following the law of God should be asked by oneself and not to the others. That is why it is written 'Examine Yourself'. Today's people, elders and custodians use this privilege to pass judgement on people. Which is wrong because in many insistances it is not based on anything that is from above. We have to be self critical and not people critical.

 

Finally, Pleaae read these verses:

All the verses that you have mentioned only strengthens my point of view.

Christ bought the church for a price. If you take that in account. You should ‘purchase’ your wife, not the other way around.

Let us leave trivial arguments which is based on what must have been done in the past and look at the upliftment of one another.

May God be gracious.

Joe

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 9:52:49 AM Close

Dear Br. Moses,

There is no neutral stand in front of God. My contention is that if the law of the land states that it is illegal. It is illegal. You can define loopholes and get solace. But the fact is, it is evil. For e.g, In the GCC, the law says, gather only at the place which is designated. If it is given, you worship there. You dont break the law and gather wherever you feel like. You a the Brand Ambassador of God on this earth. So you bear his testimony and good will. 

David coveted someone elses possession. Logical understanding, today's circumstance: In-laws coveted daughter in law's family's possession. God then punishes. pray our loved ones dont fall under this same category.

May God be gracious.

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 1:46:58 PM Close

Dear Rick,

I again only comment to the points that are addressed by you and have replied them in italics. Since I can see there are only selective portions that you have replied to. I will address them to make it more clear.

Here, we must consider if the ‘indication of want’ is for the betterment of the bride and bridegroom or for selfish desires of the bridegroom’s party. Is not the bride’s party at their liberty to refuse to give their girl in marriage to the prospective bridegroom who or whose family showed indication of any want?

You still have not understood the aspect of dowry in the Old testament and what the biblical stance is. According to the beginning of times and then in the new testament, the men leaves the house and joins his wife and becomes one. Here the act of separation is created by the man for his wife to bring her and have unison. Just like Christ came down or separated himself from heaven so he could bring the bride that is the church to heaven. Here is there no barter deal. When Paul tells a person to marry, he is telling get married. He doesn’t indicate that have all the materialistic benefits also attached to it. My point to conclude is Man for the Woman, Woman for the Man. Anything that comes in between the head or back should be God and Him alone.

Where do you find the measuring stick in DNA testing? Can everyone's progeny be identified by DNA testing? Can science prove whether you and I are not Israelites or surely say we are Gentiles? Comparison of DNA sequence can only show if the individual under testing is derived from the supposed parents. Even proving relationship based on 'mitochondrial genome' is not easy. It only shows common descent from maternal lines. How do you think ten or more generations’ lineage can be determined by DNA testing? Can you name your great grandfathers in a row ten generations backwards? How do you get their samples for testing?

I think you don’t give due credit to the mankind. And forget at the end of the they are all images and creation of God. In today’s day and age for e.g., when you can identify the Pharaohs which are of 3000 years old through DNA matching and their relatives, are you telling me that I could not find my ancestry or anyone’s ancestry for the last ten generations? It is not only DNA testing, as I said there are a lot of things apart from that which comes in to play. Today in the western countries there are kits which can give you a history of lineage by just providing the saliva. I hope that answers your question. And for your unfortunate question of naming all of my great grandfathers. I can. But it is highly irrelevant, since that is not the point of discussion. If you ask me to name them on this forum, I can. But then it shows that you are interested in picking trivial matters and digressing from the main topic.

You are generalizing everyone into one group by using the word “our”, “we” etc. and including me and others into a group which you are assuming of. How do you know my forefathers or I was influenced by my forefathers’ backgrounds? As for me, I never lived with my grandparents and never seen how they lived.

In the Old Testament, the people followed God from Joshua, to elders and then some more of them and then went into path of sin. In the New Testament, the same scenario happened Christianity. People followed Christ and God till the Apostles, Evangelists and Teachers. Then traditions of the land cropped in the teachings and the resulted in the Roman Catholic Church.

Again there was revival when the prophets and Good kings ruled and Israel kept waning back and forth. It is the same today, Protestantism formed – which created more groups. Then our community was formed and we are back to how the Israelites were. Waning between here and there. Why? Because one lacks the courage or grip in the word of God and His spirit to lead us. That is why traditions are so infused in us. You may have not lived with your grandfather, but it could be possible that you have learned about his ways of life and must have inculcated it in your life through some other personal relations or factors. To say that nothing has influenced you is to tell that you don’t have anything that is called his DNA in your system or that hereditary is a fraudulent concept. Which I know, you don’t think so.

What relevance those two questions have when you are dealing with the law of the land? 

Where did I make reference to this on the laws of land? This was when the aspect of marriage comes. Which statement sounds better for a new believer who is giving his daughter into a godly home to hear?

“When did I imply that we should discard the traditions of the apostles? My reference verse clearly states we should hold onto what they taught.

Did I misunderstand your statement which is as below?

We are not supposed to follow the tradition of the old” in your quote:

Did not Jesus say” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:40) after saying that which is in Matthew 22:37-39

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. (Matthew 22:37-39)

We are not required to be circumcised as an additional work to be saved. It was a false teaching taught by Judaizers. Christ did all that we need to do.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:1-2)

Sabbath is given for the children of Israel but what is wrong in taking rest on Sabbath? Does Bible (New Testament to be specific) prohibit taking rest on Sabbath? I am not talking about worshipping on Sabbath day! Which verse in the New Testament prohibits taking rest on Sabbath? I think you are confused with some verses in the Bible.

I really do not know what you have understood. On one hand in your earlier post you are either all for the laws and traditions of the Old testament because it holds untowardly significance and then you say circumcision is not needed.

The reason that the Jewish Christians mentioned this to Gentile believers is because of the Judaic law. They felt that you need ascribe to all of it to be saved. They are not wrong, because circumcision is the first thing one does, when one’s child is born. A foundation principle of being part of the chosen generation that is the people of Israel given to none another than Abraham. Though it was not wrong, it was misguided. My point to you brother is that if you hold onto all the laws and traditions of the Old testament, you need to follow them all.

With regards to Sabbath, (Mark 2:27). It was for made for man and not the other way around. If you want to keep it. Keep it with all the ordinances, then it makes sense. Or else, don’t. At the end of the day it really does not matter. I never indicated or said you need/need not keep the Sabbath. I only said, if you want to keep all of it – keep it in its entirety. Then it makes sense. We have God who has has given us the Laws of Providence and not the Law of Convenience. 

Jesus said:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”. (Matthew 5:17)

What did you understand from Ephesians 2:15 Did Christ abolish the Law?

“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” (Ephesians 2:15)

Here the key phrase is: even the Law. I think you need to read: Romans 10:4-12. This would give you that insight and bear one another which is the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). The law is fulfilled and bears no part in Christianity anymore.

“In India, I have been stop by the cops 7 times”

You have basically violated the Indian Law. Remission or retribution is secondary. Rest of your points are hypothetical unless you clearly define what is “New Covenant”

Your counter argument does not merit here because I think you do not have much to say. Do you know the circumstances of which the law was broken?  It could have been unintentional? We have a God of forgiveness and not of revenge. For that matter, the people in Israel had cities of refuge for unintentional and accidental transgression which could also be used in case of murder. And here, someone points a finger at a petty or negligible issue with the traffic which has already been paid in various accounts and has kept the person in clear conscience? And talks about remission and retribution being secondary? Remission and retribution in Christ are not secondary. He died and atoned for you. Then you accept and believe.  If it wasn't, none of us would have been redeemed. We have the conscience of His nature in us and that is why we correct ourselves and grow in Him.

To call my points hypothetical is based on a certain lack of understanding. Maybe the spirit has not revealed to you right now what the new covenant is. I have clearly stated it and like Apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 1:13-14. Maybe you will understand it in part right now and fully later.

But we have a great spirit in us. Let us ask it (1 John 2:27) because everyone of us has its anointing.

May the Lord be gracious.

 Joe

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 3:04:02 PM Close

Dear ‘paizanjoe,’

In the light of your second posting, let me quote what you wrote on this thread. The last sentence on your initial posting was a challenge, in the form of a question: “How many of us can step forward and help eradicate this evil within our community?” You wrote on the second posting, “But to get a consensus or understanding on what people in Christendom generally would do.” These two sentences indicate that you want to challenge and make modification of the conduct of certain people that you mentioned as ‘people.’ You also want to make consensus as the medium of change. A consensus is a collective opinion of general agreement. How could any make a collective agreement without making it known about who have agreed to that agreement? There should be real names of known people or people who could be verified as existing and are in good standing in the society, because the collective agreement is to bring changes to the existing traditions. You even called it a ‘traditional evil.’

You wrote in the second paragraph of your second posting of 1 Mar 2016, “If you say, step forward, start show boldness and show it all. I would come back to you and say, it is my freedom in Christ to approach a subject matter as the spirit in me deems fit.” You made the expressions ‘have the boldness,’ ‘confess,’ ‘step forward,’ and ‘eradicate’ on the last paragraph of your first posting of 1 Mar 2016. However, you are making the false notion that those expressions came from me and not from you on 1 Mar 2016. Such behavior does not come from a person who has good intentions to change ‘evil traditions’ in a community or a society.

You also wrote on the second posting of 1 Mar 2016, “We have accountability to all of it when we meet the Maker.” All men and women will meet their Maker. However, some will meet their Maker as their Savior-Lord-and-God. Others will meet Him as their Maker and Judge, and they will be cast into the Lake of Fire. Now you wrote about ‘accountability.’ Don’t you know that you have accountability to accept what you write as yours and not as a man who is afraid of somebody? If you want others to show boldness, why you are exempted from that show of boldness? If you want others to step forward with boldness by confessing to eradicate and evil tradition, why you are exempted from that show of boldness; you being the leader and initiator of a consensus making process?

This brings us to the first paragraph of your second posting, where you wrote, “I do not understand, what you mean by 'using one's full name?', Do you mean that I have to disclose my name or do you want people/me to disclose people who have taken it and done it?” If you do not know that you have a full name, then this question have some validity. On the other hand, you may not know that you have a full name; and that is a possibility. Since you want to take the lead of making a consensus to eradicate an evil tradition, tell us your real name. That is the sign of a leader who has ‘the boldness.’

Contrary to what you wrote, I did not ask anyone to confess or to make known what they did or did not do on the subject of dowry. You asked for boldness and confession on this matter from others. I only asked to write for or against this subject using their names, because it is your intention to derive at a consensus.

In summary while claiming that you want only a discussion, you are asking others to help you to change an ‘evil tradition.’ That is the manner in which one tries to be a community organizer.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 3:07:47 PM Close

Dear ‘paizanjoe,’

You made a third posting on 1 May 2016 addressing me. The first sentence of that posting was, “I understand the premise you come from when you mention these verses.” What verses are you writing about? I did not quote any verse in my posting of 1 May 2016.

Your second sentence was, “But sadly, the context is misguided.” What context are you referring to?

You mentioned about examples that were ‘taken’ or ‘to be taken.’ I did not provide any examples.

After making those statements and falsely accusing me, you wrote about three points to put something about something I did not write. Your exact words were, “Let me put it in perspective:

Your first ‘perspective’ was about the children of Israel from the Old Testament. I did not write anything about the Old Testament, the Jews, or the Israelites. What is this about ‘an eye for an eye’ statement of yours? Did I write anything about ‘tradition?’ I did not.

Your second ‘perspective’ is equally and unequivocally a misrepresentation of me by a person who started this thread with misrepresentation about his intent. You started this thread to discuss something and then you wrote that it is to ‘eradicate this evil within the community.’ That makes you a person with an agenda of community organization and you will go to any extend to accomplish it. I ask you to answer about where and how I mentioned about your accusations in your second and third postings of 1 Mar 2016?

Your third ‘perspective’ point is a hilarious falsification of facts. It is a falsification of facts, because it was you who challenged others to write with ‘boldness.’ Now you say that it was I who asked others to write boldly on your subject. I suggest that you read your first frame with which you started this thread.

There is no meaning to write, “May the Lord be gracious to all.” Your posting is filled with falsification and misrepresentation of facts to accuse me for something I did not do. After doing such an act, you may feel the need of God being gracious to you because you lie without conscience.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 4:57:28 PM Close

Dear Koshy,

Again I answer to all your points in italics, since either you clearly do not know what you write and how to have a discussion. Or you do not understand or choose not understand. But I am happy more than obliged to explain each and every point which you have posted with clear cut examples of your statements.

 

In the light of your second posting, let me quote what you wrote on this thread. The last sentence on your initial posting was a challenge, in the form of a question: “How many of us can step forward and help eradicate this evil within our community?” You wrote on the second posting, “But to get a consensus or understanding on what people in Christendom generally would do.” These two sentences indicate that you want to challenge and make modification of the conduct of certain people that you mentioned as ‘people.’ You also want to make consensus as the medium of change. A consensus is a collective opinion of general agreement. How could any make a collective agreement without making it known about who have agreed to that agreement? There should be real names of known people or people who could be verified as existing and are in good standing in the society, because the collective agreement is to bring changes to the existing traditions. You even called it a ‘traditional evil.’

Let me ask you a very general question. Why do you have to name a person(s) on a public forum to address a general change that needs to happen? Do you take pride in the name and shame game? If not, what defines this purpose?

Let me put another question, if we have to answer everyone with meekness, gentleness and seasoned with salt? How do you achieve that with the tactic you recommend?

In Christendom, there are weak believers, there are strong believers. When one wants to eradicate a social evil or take necessary steps to eradicate it. There are necessary steps by which believers resort to. The accusation and judgemental channel does not work here. For example, if a new believer, a woman comes to the church and forgets to cover her hair. Would you:

·         Name her in the church and Shame her for not covering her hair?

·         Or, would you have one of the elder sister take her to side and explain it to her gently why it needs to be done and let the spirit guide her?

This is how we arrive at the consensus, or we arrive at a mutual agreement. Because it is not you who is dictating the terms, but the spirit and it is the same spirit which controls each one of us.

 

You wrote in the second paragraph of your second posting of 1 Mar 2016, “If you say, step forward, start show boldness and show it all. I would come back to you and say, it is my freedom in Christ to approach a subject matter as the spirit in me deems fit.” You made the expressions ‘have the boldness,’ ‘confess,’ ‘step forward,’ and ‘eradicate’ on the last paragraph of your first posting of 1 Mar 2016. However, you are making the false notion that those expressions came from me and not from you on 1 Mar 2016. Such behavior does not come from a person who has good intentions to change ‘evil traditions’ in a community or a society.

This is your thought and your belief. Because if I said these statement, you expressly said that these statements should come with ‘names’ attached. I have given an open forum for discussion where one can accept this problem and help enhance this discussion. We have the spirit of unity. The boldness could come in phases. But that is how the person lets the spirit leads them into. ‘If’ there is not boldness there would not respond in anyway. That is why the word ‘if’ was used. They could come anyway they liked.

You also wrote on the second posting of 1 Mar 2016, “We have accountability to all of it when we meet the Maker.” All men and women will meet their Maker. However, some will meet their Maker as their Savior-Lord-and-God. Others will meet Him as their Maker and Judge, and they will be cast into the Lake of Fire. Now you wrote about ‘accountability.’ Don’t you know that you have accountability to accept what you write as yours and not as a man who is afraid of somebody? If you want others to show boldness, why you are exempted from that show of boldness? If you want others to step forward with boldness by confessing to eradicate and evil tradition, why you are exempted from that show of boldness; you being the leader and initiator of a consensus making process?

Your statement here is vague. If I accepted what I have written. I don’t see the point of bringing the topic of boldness in a different context. Firstly, I raised the question, I asked the question - I did not curb any bodys freedom to respond how they want to approach the topic. If they want to keep anonymity, it is fine. If they don’t want to, also it is fine. The Lord didn’t call me to become a leader. It is better to serve, there fore this topic was served as a broad discussion rather than consensus and agreement or naming and shaming on the pretext of eradicating the evil.

This brings us to the first paragraph of your second posting, where you wrote, “I do not understand, what you mean by 'using one's full name?', Do you mean that I have to disclose my name or do you want people/me to disclose people who have taken it and done it?” If you do not know that you have a full name, then this question have some validity. On the other hand, you may not know that you have a full name; and that is a possibility. Since you want to take the lead of making a consensus to eradicate an evil tradition, tell us your real name. That is the sign of a leader who has ‘the boldness.’

I will give you my real name (though Joe is my name) if you can answer me this question. When Christ died, who took his body and buried it? Was that person doing all this in the context of being open and broadly displaying his name or did he do it in secrecy? If a person chooses to operate for Christ in a shroud of secrecy, is it wrong? When Christ also teaches us the same on how they should not be like the Pharisees?

Contrary to what you wrote, I did not ask anyone to confess or to make known what they did or did not do on the subject of dowry. You asked for boldness and confession on this matter from others. I only asked to write for or against this subject using their names, because it is your intention to derive at a consensus.

You did. I asked a general question which was for self-examination, but did not indicate that THEY have to do it. That is why the statement was: How many of us, if we have the boldness, confess that it was done in our case?. The word, if. You stated that it has to come with names.

In summary while claiming that you want only a discussion, you are asking others to help you to change an ‘evil tradition.’ That is the manner in which one tries to be a community organizer.

It can be taken in whatever context you want. If it for the greater good for the community, then so be it. A discussion can lead to a movement, it can lead to a thought, it could touch someone in some way. What is wrong in just being a catalyst rather than a reactor?

For the mail below, it had happened that it was addressed to Rick and you simulateanously, but only your name was mentioned since I generally type these things on a word.doc and had forgotten to add the names in the address. Apologies for that. I will have that corrected now. My comments to some of your additional points have been marked in italics.  

Dear ‘paizanjoe,’

You made a third posting on 1 May 2016 addressing me. The first sentence of that posting was, “I understand the premise you come from when you mention these verses.” What verses are you writing about? I did not quote any verse in my posting of 1 May 2016.

Nothing was addressed in May but in March.

Your second sentence was, “But sadly, the context is misguided.” What context are you referring to?

You mentioned about examples that were ‘taken’ or ‘to be taken.’ I did not provide any examples.

After making those statements and falsely accusing me, you wrote about three points to put something about something I did not write. Your exact words were, “Let me put it in perspective:

Your first ‘perspective’ was about the children of Israel from the Old Testament. I did not write anything about the Old Testament, the Jews, or the Israelites. What is this about ‘an eye for an eye’ statement of yours? Did I write anything about ‘tradition?’ I did not.

Your second ‘perspective’ is equally and unequivocally a misrepresentation of me by a person who started this thread with misrepresentation about his intent. You started this thread to discuss something and then you wrote that it is to ‘eradicate this evil within the community.’ That makes you a person with an agenda of community organization and you will go to any extend to accomplish it. I ask you to answer about where and how I mentioned about your accusations in your second and third postings of 1 Mar 2016?

As I said earlier, if you think that way, you are free to think. God has given you a mind to think.

Your third ‘perspective’ point is a hilarious falsification of facts. It is a falsification of facts, because it was you who challenged others to write with ‘boldness.’ Now you say that it was I who asked others to write boldly on your subject. I suggest that you read your first frame with which you started this thread.

There is no meaning to write, “May the Lord be gracious to all.” Your posting is filled with falsification and misrepresentation of facts to accuse me for something I did not do. After doing such an act, you may feel the need of God being gracious to you because you lie without conscience

You felt bereaved, I can understand, but I have not lied to you and you are not the one who has to judge someone on whether they are lying without a conscience or not. To think of something general discussion as an accusation is not the way one addresses his grievances, there could have been alternative way of putting it across. Mockery and sarcasm does not befit a child of God. Anyway in all context let the Lord be the judge of all that.

May the Lord Be Gracious.

Regards,

Joe.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 5:02:24 PM Close

This is the post I had actually written to both of you but fail to address the points to the respective person. I have done that. And I hope it now clears the air.

 

Dear Koshy/Rick,

I understand the premise you come from when you mention these verses. But sadly, the context is misguided. Because if the examples were to be taken literally, men would have to give ‘dowries’ to women. That is not the case.

Let me put it in perspective:

Rick - First: We are not of the Old Testament, neither are we Jews or Israelites. If your context is of putting tradition and laws of the Israel. Then it should be followed in full. For e.g., then an eye of an eye would also be applicable. But that is not the case as per the New Testament. Even the Jews had to understand the new covenant. Hebrews 8: 6-13 would give you a clearer understanding.

Apart from all this – We are not supposed to follow the tradition of the old or held captive to it (Colossians 2:8). If we have to follow a tradition, it should be on foundation laid by Christ and the apostles. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Rick - Second: There is a clear cut instruction in the word of God, that we have to obey the authorities and the laws of the land. Why? Because everything we see, hear and experience is based on what God has in His plan. Romans 13: 1-14, gives a broad description on what a good Christian needs to do. In India, the law of the land states it is illegal. The Law is called The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. If one takes ‘gifts’ ‘monetary benefits’ or anything as defined, which is not permissible according to law of the country, one breaks the law. And a good Christian should not break the law of the land. How does one answer then? And to whom? Of course, to God in the end.

Koshy. Third: I am sure you would also know of plenty of circumstances in different parts of India where this system is prevalent. As in your first post, you made the challenge to me of coming out ‘boldly’ (stress here is on names) on this topic. Sadly, knowing the truth, circumstances and scenarios in the country and elsewhere. Rick: When one asks the other to raise and one who tells the other to do so keeps quiet or even quote the old testament scriptures with a contradictory explanation (Meaning: I can come back and say, let all Christian men now pay dowry for their wives based on the scriptural portions that you have quoted), it becomes baffling and inconsistent.

May the Lord be gracious to all.

Regards,

Joe

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 5:43:12 PM Close

Dear Rick,

Hopefully, after my correction of who the post where addressed to with names, we can still continue. Br Koshy, feels pricked beyond compare. But let me continue to pray that he understands the sense in all of this. My posts to you are in bold italics.

I will continue to discuss with you because you are very interesting person but with few wrong notions.

To think anyone has a wrong notion unless expressly proved and convinced it is wrong still does not hold merit. Let us continue to discuss. And see who has the wrong notion :-).

Firstly, you are mixing up “law of the land” with scriptures. In the very first post itself I have shown you what the definition of ‘dowry’ is according to dictionary and shown you how in the Old Testament period how men paid money or kind to get wives for themselves.  Secondly, you have a wrong notion that Law is abolished; the Law is never abolished. 

I haven’t mixed the topics. They are in sync with each other. Traditions and Laws are equally binding. Giving dowry is a tradition, and there was guidance on how it should be meted out in the old testament scriptures. Whereas accepting dowry in India is illegal. We are not Israelite if we have the citizenship of India. So, we obey the law of the land. If it gives stress to both families or causes them to fall – we avoid it. On one hand – there is law and tradition of the Old Testament on the other hand there is freedom in Christ and country laws that we need to abide. As believers we have to choose the latter. We have been called for that.

Please read these verses:

Ro 7:12 “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good”.

Ro 7:16 “If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good”.

Ro 7:21 “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me”.

1Ti 1:8 “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully”

You wrote “Here is there no barter deal”.

 

All the statements till the barter line leads to the laws fulfilment that is Christ. And he is the end of it (Romans 10:4). What is completed by Christ, as believers why do we reopen it and go under its bondage?

Barter line:

My statement: Here the act of separation is created by the man for his wife to bring her and have unison. Just like Christ came down or separated himself from heaven so he could bring the bride that is the church to heaven. Here is there no barter deal. When Paul tells a person to marry, he is telling get married. He doesn’t indicate that have all the materialistic benefits also attached to it.

I was referring to the materialistic imposition which comes in marriages and using the demonstration of Christ and church. Hence, no barter deal.

Really?  Then, according to you everyone will be saved without confessing Jesus as “Lord” and believe in heart that God raised Him from the dead. (Contrary to Romans 10:9-10) 

There is barter deal. Jesus paid price for the salvation of man and man has to confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe in heart that God raised Him from the dead 

The confession of a believer is predestined. God knows who has been chosen. He knows who have realised that the price his son has paid. As believers, we are the catalyst for the future. And the right time the spirit would reveal it to him/her. (Ephesians 4:1)

Let us leave discussing about DNA testing. If required we will come back to it later. 

I reiterate this point. 

Here, we must consider if the ‘indication of want’ is for the betterment of the bride and bridegroom or for selfish desires of the bridegroom’s party. Is not the bride’s party at their liberty to refuse to give their girl in marriage to the prospective bridegroom who or whose family showed indication of any want? 

Can the bride’s party refuse to give the girl to the bridegroom if the latter demands “dowry”? Do they have freedom to do so or not?  Why are you particular about indicting bridegroom’s party and call for eradicating ‘dowry’?  Is not girl also responsible if they give ‘dowry’?  Why are you bringing these secular practices into biblical understanding and then questioning or asking for clarification? 

“1. Brother, hope you have made ‘arrangements’ for your daughter? 2. Brother, hope all is well, not to worry about anything. We are in Christ”. 

 

How can you call it secular? In one of your earlier post you mentioned this: What is wrong if a parent wants to give his daughter his inheritance that goes ultimately to his daughter and his son-in-law? Although it is not for quarrel, but his daughter would have always a say in small petty altercations. She will not be ill-treated by her husband. If she goes to husband’s house empty handed, she would be like a slave.  I don’t consider it as “evil”

How can one justify mistreating someone on the basis of wealth, income or property? How is it secular? I agree with you one point, both sides should be equally responsible to eradicate it. But in today’s day and age, we have comprehensive evidence of it being prevalent among the groom rather than the bride.

The two questions I had posted which you mentioned above, you still haven’t clarified. Which is right before the eyes of the Lord?   

Whatever teaching that says additional work is to be done for salvation besides accepting that the efficacy of the blood of Jesus is enough for salvation is false teaching. That is why I wrote necessitating circumcision as a condition for salvation is false teaching.  

This is true. But then what about the Sabbath? Your views were what is wrong in keeping the Sabbath. That is also a law. Just like circumcision. I think you have to understand if the believers in that time gave into it. The n the next would have been the Sabbath, the Passover, and the rest of it. God was gracious.

You have a very wrong view of Romans 10:4-12, Ephesians 2:15. It takes great deal of time to explain it to you. I may write in due course of time about your misunderstanding of these references.

I think the word of God is quite clear, I don’t think there is any misunderstanding unless of course you want to explain the freedom in Christ from the perspective of the Old Testament law. I am not yoked or burdened by the Law that convinces me of sin because it is right. I am yoked with the Freedom in Christ (Galatians 5:1)

May the Lord be gracious.

Joe.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 6:36:42 PM Close

Hi Rick,

I agree, there is no stating that this provision is not there in the law. But can we look at today's scenario and context and say: we as believers follow this provision?

You would be surprised in this discussion; we still have not taken a woman’s perspective.

Let me give you an example. So that some people don’t feel ‘accused’, I will use my context. When I got married, my wife was of the faith but her family belongs to a different denomination. Her parents felt ‘bad’ that there was no ‘financial dealings’ that were closed. Reason for it as my forum topic suggestss, I was strongly against it. For them, it was matter of tradition and obligation. I am certain, there would not have been any list drawn up and given under the pretext of ‘gifts’ as stated in the Indian Law. It would have come to me as it is. It would have then been illegal. I could have used the law to make the dowry as a ‘gift’ and drawn it out as well under all its provisions. In front of judicial system, I am then right. Unless my wife in future, contest this saying she and her family were pressured. See there a loop holes. But if you look at it the Indian Law or any Law was written keeping man’s good conscience in mind not his crooked nature.

Coming to my example, so when I came home. This is the interesting part. People from our community from the church and also relation, asked me if I got anything from my wife’s house. I replied, yes. My wife. That was my reply. It still remains a fact that even in our community, it is expected in some form or other even after understanding the grace and wisdom that lies in marriage. These things/thoughts lead to covetousness and that is something which is unfortunately inscribed in our community knowingly or unknowingly.

Let us continue to understand God first and then understand ourselves to better ourselves in His favour.

May He be gracious.

Regards,

Joe.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 6:46:16 PM Close

Dear Joe, You are mixing up several points and that is why the length of this thread is growing. Answer an important questionI asked you. Are Bridal party also responsible or not? This is the law in India Under the Dowry Prohibition Law it is an offense to both take dowry OR to give dowry.  So the groom and his family who have taken dowry can be charged.  And if the bride’s family has complied with the dowry demand and given dowry, they can also be charged as guilty as under this law. The punishment for violating the law is 5 years imprisonment + Rs.15000/- fine or the value of the dowry given, whichever is more

 

Dear Rick,

I agree both parties are responsible. But how many ‘bridal party’ will come forward and state this and bring it in open light? Do you think in our community, they will? How many insistences do you know of where they openly came and stated that? I could state of people I know who have ‘indulged’ in it. I am sure you are aware of some cases as well. Again, ‘if’ we had the boldness, would we confess and correct these for the future?

Everyone lives in fear of their integrity and reputation, it wouldn’t come in the open. If you followed the law and lived it according to Christ - such topics would not have been there for discussion nor debate, nor their threads so long. We would have been discussing and trying something else.

So to conclude, let there be the Lord’s leading in all of this.

Regards,

Joe.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 2 Mar 2016 10:06:34 PM Close

Dear Rick,

My points as always in bold italics. And after that I rest this case and don’t wish to respond.

You are writing about some stray incidences happened in India and conclude that such incidences happen all over the world.  I have not come across anyone giving or taking ‘dowry’ forcibly. You may have seen in movies!

Nope, if you have not seen, read or heard -then you are not aware maybe. Dowry is mandate in all Christian community including ours. If you state otherwise, then I think there is some level of ignorance in this.

I do know of cases where there are gifts given or inheritance is shared with bridegroom’s party.  It is willful offering by girl’s parent. Since you stated your case I personally know of a case, where a father-in-law gave some of his earnings to the bridegroom and wife and husband used it for their betterment and the betterment of their children. Then, the man offered the daughter’s share to her and her husband. He also had a share from his daughter-in-law’s home and he used it for their betterment.

Again you digress from your points based on the Old Testament which you have put up. If it is wilful, it should be the other way around, then. Man should provide for the betterment of his future family. That is God’s institution for man as the provider.

In all cases the girl/wife had always a say that her father did not send her empty handed. That was a strong point on her whenever there arose petty quarrels in their homes. Such giving and taking of monetary benefits or in kind always are good.

How can in any circumstance, could you imply that the something monetary or kind should be given so that ‘troubles in the household could be avoided? Are you saying that you need to give those to avoid it and so that the relationship be good? So where is the Lords leading in all of it? Are we serving God or the monetary benefit for the ‘peace’ of the house?

Neither secular (Dictionary meaning = “of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal”) Law nor Biblical Laws prohibited it. Then, what boldness you are talking about and what eradication you are talking about? You have not read “The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961”

If you have read it you would not have come up with irrelevant questions and answers and dragging the discussion and finally say “I agree”

I think it has come to a point where you wish not to accept the point of view. If you look at the law and the implications based on the scenarios stated, you will see there were lot of loop holes’ people follow. On top of it, recently there were amendments (Check Anti Dowry Law) to it. Which now, you would check and come back, to which I will henceforth not respond to. To state my point of view as irrelevant shows your impatience and also your refusal to accept what is actually right. I have stated in my last post in how it could be used. You could refer to that, or leave the topic.

Your first statement:  “We all know that dowry is illegal”. 

Here, you included everyone that everyone knows that your so-called “The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961” is known to everyone as “illegal”.

Didn’t you have moral science class? Like when children were taught 2+2=4, wasn’t this also taught in those class? It is general thing which is taught. If you have not. I am surprised. Again.

Now you say” I agree both parties are responsible:” and you pose question to me “But how many ‘bridal party’ will come forward and state this and bring it in open light?”  The onus of proving that how many will come or not is yours. (No, the onus lies on people who see it practicing it live and making it known, or the people who are being victimised by it. If you are asking if I did. I think people around me know, when they raised this topic, what my ‘argument’ was) If you had known the provisions of the Law you would not have called it as “illegal” and say” if we have the boldness, confess that it was done in our case? How many of us can step forward and help eradicate this evil within our community?” (I stand by calling it illegal, if it does not meet the provisions. I again state as I had earlier, the law also has loopholes which can be used for one owns benefit if it is not clearly addressed by one’s own conscience. My point is follow the law as it is and not use these loopholes. Then you bear testament)

You wrote “ In various bible teaching sessions, we also teach against it” How do you know that I taught you presumed of? (Enough number of ‘Bible teachers and evangelists’ have expressed it as a social evil. To top it all, it has also been spoken in conventions and ministries to the unbelievers as well, stating the added need for salvation and freedom of Christ. I never said you taught against it. You seem to take a biased stand towards it for the ‘peace’ of the household, which I state is not where the peace of household should come from, but from God)

“why do the brethren of the old nad new today still indicate the need for it?”  You should provide how many brethren of old “nad” (what is “nad”?)

(Are you coming back to a spelling check here? Nad is ‘and’. It is typing error. If there was an indication of sarcasm, I really don’t mind.)

“Surprisingly and unfortunately, both parties agree to this 'tradition'.”  I really don’t know how many brethren really agree to what you said as “tradition”. And your irresponsible questions go on…

How is it irresponsible? Are you stating that it is not there? Then we have another thing to deal with for which I am not really interested in)

You did not read or understand what I wrote on 1 Mar 2016 17:43:29 I repeat what I wrote:

“Your intention may be that it is wrong for girl or girl's parents to give money or property to boy or boy's parent. However, you started discussion based on Biblical terms. So, first let us define what "dowry" is.  Per dictionary it is "the money or property brought by a woman to her husband at marriage".  Do you agree? if you have different opinon please let the forum know. Going by the definition I am not in favor of "dowry".  Having said that you wrote "In various bible teaching sessions, we also teach against it and generally express 'belief' that God brings two souls together".  I am yet to find a Bible verse condemning "dowry" as defined in the dictionary. Going by the Biblical definition I found few verses where boy or boy's parents gave bridal payment”

You still have not understood my argument. Or what I have written also, though I have replied to each of your posts and points in detail. I will repeat so that it shows how God’s principles work hand in hand with the laws of the land that you dwell on.

Rick - First: We are not of the Old Testament, neither are we Jews or Israelites. If your context is of putting tradition and laws of the Israel. Then it should be followed in full. For e.g., then an eye of an eye would also be applicable. But that is not the case as per the New Testament. Even the Jews had to understand the new covenant. Hebrews 8: 6-13 would give you a clearer understanding.

Apart from all this – We are not supposed to follow the tradition of the old or held captive to it (Colossians 2:8). If we have to follow a tradition, it should be on foundation laid by Christ and the apostles. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Rick - Second: There is a clear cut instruction in the word of God, that we have to obey the authorities and the laws of the land. Why? Because everything we see, hear and experience is based on what God has in His plan. Romans 13: 1-14, gives a broad description on what a good Christian needs to do. In India, the law of the land states it is illegal. The Law is called The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. If one takes ‘gifts’ ‘monetary benefits’ or anything as defined, which is not permissible according to law of the country, one breaks the law. And a good Christian should not break the law of the land. How does one answer then? And to whom? Of course, to God in the end.

 

Old Testament references are all shadows of how Jesus paid price for His bride and purchased the bride and redeemed.  Only when a person confesses Jesus as “Lord” and believe in heart that God raised Him from the dead will be saved. (Read Romans 10:9-10) but then you quote “predestination”!

Here we come back to the point of understanding what makes a believer. You have questions on predestinations. Here are the references. (Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8: 28-30, Ephesians 1:5, Romans 8: 29, etc.) When does the confession happen? It is when the Father draws him to make that confession. (John 6:44). So it is not you who makes the confession. But the spirit which moves in you that makes your soul confess it. If you are slow, God waits. (2 Peter 3:9). Only those appointed for eternal life believe (Acts 13:48) This is when the believer becomes a part of the church, the bride of Christ.

You did not have anything to say on my post

Quote “What is an : “eye for eye”? I think you are referring to Matthew 5:38 tracing back to Deuteronomy 19:21

(And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:21))

Do you know those verses speak about punishment for false witnessing? In all the cases in verses (Exo. 21:24, Lev. 24:20, and Deut. 19:21) those instructions were given as a rule for guidance to the Judges. In the judicial cases as defined in the Scriptures, it is not unjust. Jesus did not find fault with the instructions which are to be applied to Magistrates.  Unquote

Again here, I repeat what I have written below earlier which prves you have not read it.

You state I feel it is wrong. I didn’t say or write that. Christ didn’t find the law wrong. Of course, he would not. He was with the Father when the law was developed and given to Moses. And the laws where given because of the ‘hardness of their hearts’. But when you take the laws and retribution. I think you need to go back to the gospels and read what he stated (Mathew 5:38 – 41) or in the case of forgiveness (Matthew 18: 21-22). Even the letters by Paul, Paul was grieved when brothers took matters such that these between brothers to court, when and if the brothers and sisters where controlled by the spirit, could have been amicably resolved within the church or between them. (I Corinthians 6:1).

You are neither good in noting the provisions of the Indian Law nor in Biblical Laws.

I think your impatience in replying has caused you make such judgemental error in statements.

Jesus said:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:17-18)

Read this again “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”

You say the Law is abolished! Are you greater than Jesus that I believe your words?

You hear forget the key phrase – till all is ‘fulfilled’. Who fulfilled it? You? Me? No Christ. When he has fulfilled it, he has ended it as well. You have given a verse below to strengthen my argument with.

“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” Colossians 2:14 (KJV)

In addition to this, please refer to these as well. (Galatians 3: 23-25, Ephesians 2:14-15. Fulfilment means that Christ has completed the old and brought it to its full expression in the new.

Scripture says “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth”. (Romans 10:4) and you say Law is ended.

What part of ‘end of the law for righteousness’ don’t you understand?

 

I think I should stop here instead of wasting any more time.

Yes, you should and let God judge whose thoughts are right before him.

Grace from God.

Joe. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 3 Mar 2016 4:27:16 AM Close

Dowry is a social evil and a bad practice among almost all the ethnic/ religious groups in India.(We are not considering other nationalities for the time being). Giving and taking dowry are illegal. Having said that, let us also think of another side of it…..

What were the succession rights of Christian women in India and especially in Kerala? . Christian women, whether married or not, were excluded from inheritance, even if they had no brothers. The Synod of Diamper in 1599, by its 20th decree, declared this mode of succession to be contrary to natural equity and wholly unlawful and decreed that the property must be equally distributed among sons and daughters12 

Let’s revisit the dowry issue among Christians. Dowry was the only financial sharing a Christian woman got from her family and that too at the time of her marriage. In certain cases the dowry demanded and given exceeds the rightful share of the girls in the property of therir parents. But there are also cases where the dowry given and taken is much less than what the girl is rightfully entitled to. The evil is in asking for something beyond the means of the parents.

My point in saying this is that while opposing the evil practice of dowry, we must also raise our voices for ensuring that the girls are not denied of their ‘rightful’ share in the wealth of their parents. I am positive that those of us who oppose the evil practice of Dowry are not helping those who are looking for exploiting an innocent, God fearing young man of the rightful share of his future wife in her parental property.

It is appropriate in this context to inquire the historical backgrounds from which the Indian Succession Act 1865 was enacted; which applied to all religious communities in India except Hindus and Muslims. The Indian Succession Act, 1925, (which replaced the 1865 Act) states that everyone is entitled to equal inheritance, barring exceptions to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Muslims.

When the British settled down to govern India, they found that there was no ascertainable law in the matter of succession for communities other than Hindus and Muslims. This vacuum came to be noticed as a result of the decision of the Privy Council to the effect that a Hindu renouncing his religion and becoming a convert to Christianity could still choose to be governed by Hindu law in matters of succession18. It was to fill this gap that the Indian Succession Act of 1865 was enacted. It provided inter alia for intestate succession of the Christians of India (and also of Parsis). It may be pertinent to note at this juncture that the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1916 and Cochin Christian Succession Act, 1921 were enacted when the Indian Succession Act, 1865 was in operation. In other words, these acts consolidated the position in the context of the 1865 Act as applied to Christians in Travancore and Cochin.

I am curious to know whether those opposing Dowry are agreeable to give equal rights in the family wealth to the women members of their family?

(Adapted / Copied from other sources also)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 3 Mar 2016 7:05:51 AM Close

Dear Rick,

You have forced me to respond, and so this last post.

I will ensure that this is my last post to you since you seem to only take you point of view in understanding what is required. I have no issues with that but since this is a started I will respond on last time to your post. After that I will leave it to people who read our responses.

Here are the Ten Commandments in concise. Besides these, there are nearly 600 ceremonial laws. You are comparing circumcision with “Sabbath”. Circumcision is not in the list of Ten Commandments, nor was it given to Moses. It was given first to Abraham as sign of belonging to chosen generation.

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (Genesis 17:11)

First. You are mistaken that circumcision was not a law. Circumcision was the law. And it was also given to Moses. Leviticus 12:1-3 who then passed it on to people of Israel. Plus, to keep the Passover, even stranger once circumcised could only partake in it. (Exodus 12:48)

Show me which law is abolished?

1.      You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.      You shall not make idols.
3.      You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4.      Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.      Honor your father and your mother.
6.      You shall not murder.
7.      You shall not commit adultery.
8.      You shall not steal.
9.      You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.  You shall not covet.
(Ref. Exodus 20:3-17)

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth”. (Romans 10:4)

Why did you truncate the verse and stopped at “righteousness”. Did you not see there is a clause which says “to every one that believeth”

When you gave me the commandments on top from either Exodus or Deuteronomy. The first things written in Exodus 20:1 – 1, And God spoke all these words, saying:. After this, Exodus 20:22 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

The laws and commandments continued.  I never said it is destroyed. What I stated in my earlier message and before that it: Fulfilment means that Christ has completed the old and brought it to its full expression in the new. What is the new? What Christ has given us. Because if we look at the Old testament. True, the NT holds its backing – but then it has to be followed in totality with the ‘ten commandments’. Here in the ten commandments, the Sabbath is also there. There are instructions in the books on how to keep it. Since you say it is not abolished? Do you keep it as it is? This could cause another contention which I am not going to get in to.

 

Law pointed sin and never provided salvation. Jews refused to come to Christ for salvation by grace through faith.  Jesus bore the curse of the Law, and therefore, those who believe in Him are justified before God. The Law is not destroyed but the end is gained, that is the purpose is gained, for those who believe in Him; otherwise the Law still points sin.

Yes. That is why as believers we don’t look at the Law since if we did, we have to look at in its totality. Again these verses: (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15).

 

That is why we do not look to the old testament law as believers.

"Barter" is a word used by you and you said the deal is over. Even according to your belief based on Predestination still there is a two way deal. God and man.

This is what the dictionary says about "barter" --  "to trade by exchange of commodities rather than by the use of money " 

Yes, I used the word barter and you have taken the dictionary context. Christ died for all mankind. Stress word is ALL. First part of the barter deal. You have been chosen to receive this understanding (predestination). The spirit moves you to accept this (confession). So if you look at it from any angle – the deal comes entirely from the lord and you are mere approver. But, my reference of barter was for explaining a different context which was of marriage. I stand closed here.

I take it this way that Jesus paid price and yet unless you confess by mouth that Jesus is the Lord and believe in heart that God raised Him from the dead you will not be saved. Man is not a Robot that God makes man to fall on his feet and confess Him as the Lord. Of course, this is achieved in the "Great Tribulation" period not in this Church period.

Yes, you have to confess, I never said you don’t have to. Your confession would only happen when the spirit moves you.  Whether you consider that ‘robotic’ is upto you. You were not entitled for his mercy and grace. He MADE you entitled for it. Here are the references for predestination and believers calling. (Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8: 28-30, Ephesians 1:5, Romans 8: 29, etc.) When does the confession happen? It is when the Father draws him to make that confession. (John 6:44). So it is not you who makes the confession. But the spirit which moves in you that makes your soul confess it. If you are slow, God waits. (2 Peter 3:9). Only those appointed for eternal life believe (Acts 13:48) This is when the believer becomes a part of the church, the bride of Christ. Even Christ states in many occasion: Many are called, but few are chosen. And also for better understanding on what I mean, refer to His testimony about how Peter accepted him as Christ.  

What is abolished is the ceremonial laws.  The Law was given to the Nation of Israel. It was made up of The Ten Commandments, the ordinances, the worship system, etc. What Paul wrote in Colossians 2:14, Galatians 3:23-25, Ephesians 2:14-15 are about the ceremonial laws. Once a man is saved he need not be under the yoke of observance of these ceremonial laws, but God did not say you can make idols and worship them, or you can murder now or commit adultery. Jesus, in fact, made the law even stricter than what it was. He said

I believe the old laws in totality was abolished paving way for newness through Christ. If you think otherwise, it is your freedom in Him.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28)

“But I say unto you, Th+at whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire”.  (Matthew 5:22)

If you look at these verses in the gospel of Mathew 22: 36- 38. Everything hangs on this. If you think he has made it harder for us, you are mistaken. Then he didn’t not tell this (Matthew 11:30). When you look at the judgement factor on the brother, you should also look at the forgiveness matter. Matthew 6:15, Luke 17:3-4, Colossians 3: 12-13 and so forth.

“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” Colossians 2:14 (KJV)

The abolition of debts of sinners that pointed their sins was achieved by Jesus when he was crucified. The demands of the Law were nailed to the cross, but not the Law. In other words, Jesus set aside the record of the debts of sinner on the cross.  The Law was never abolished.

The law does not play a factor in our salvation. It is the belief in us through the spirit. (Galatians 3: 2, 14) and makes us know the sinner we are if we have to live by it. (Galatians 3: 10-12, Romans 3:19)

What a great wrong notion you have about dowry system. You have already faltered in pointing Indian Law on “dowry” and now you say in Christian circles especially in brethren circlesDowry is mandate in all Christian community including ours”.

You say I have faltered, apart from saying faltered and even after my explanation you still hold on to that. So I wish not to correct you but you can hold on to your thinking. I still hold dowry is a mandate within our community and is practiced actively in a subtle manner. You are free to believe otherwise.

Ok. Now, I will stop even though you respond to my post because what I understood is that you need to correct yourself a great deal.

I end and shall not respond anymore. Let us all grow in Him

Joe

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 4 Mar 2016 3:58:58 AM Close

I am a bit sceptical about the sincerity of those making high decibel noises on perceived (dowry related) legal violations, altogether neglecting the legal provisions on Wealth sharing among family members and the issues of social injustices and gender discriminations!!! 

1. What is the directive given in the Bible for sharing /dividing “Parental Wealth” among male / female members of a Christian family?

2. Shall any differentiation be made on gender basis? 

3. If answer to 2 above is YES, could it not be construed as iniquitous and unfair discrimination? 

Thanks, PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 4 Mar 2016 1:10:33 PM Close

HI PTV,

If we look at the scriptures in totality and compare them together and for people who hold the mandate of the old testament so strongly and argue on its logic and does not attribute it to its understanding - as only the coming and fulfillment of Christ and he setting the new mandate. Then it was addressed by God to Moses through the claim of inheritance.

The reference for this is Numbers 27. It is more of a law of succession. Which if women read or understand, may find it very male centric. So if you were to ask if the treatment was equal. Then No. But then again, this was for a defined purpose of God for the people of Israel based on his promise of the promised land to them.

Now, if we go to the New Testament, For those who hold on the faith in Christ and go by what the New testament then it is Galatians 3:28-29, everyone, as an addition has equal portion before God. And people should treat everyone as equals. Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, all. Then based on this understanding, when it comes to a matter of inheritance - it will and is considered to be divided equally and happily.

Good Christian household who has the dominance of God do the right thing. If not, we look at the law of the land. And in India, it tends to be a realy troublesome affair if 'good' christians take that route for inheritance. 

Regards,

Joe.

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 5 Mar 2016 4:04:55 AM Close

Thank you Joe for your reply.

Concluding something as legal or illegal is when measured against the Law of the Land. This thread was started stating “that dowry is illegal”.

In the closing para of the posting, Joe made this statement:

 Quote: “Good Christian household who has the dominance of God do the right thing. If not, we look at the law of the land. And in India, it tends to be a realy troublesome affair if 'good' christians take that route for inheritance.” End Quote

We are addressing good Christian households and I hope we don’t have a prescription for “BAD Christian Households” while they continue to remain bad.  And let us teach the bad households to change into good Christian households.

But, if we are interested in legality / illegality, we must heed what the Law says and abide by it. Whether good  or bad all households are mandated to abide by the Law of the Land. 

Thanks, PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 5 Mar 2016 7:24:55 AM Close

Thank you PTV.

My views exactly. This topic stands closed.

May God be gracious to all.

Regards,

Joe.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 9 Mar 2016 6:19:13 PM Close

Dear ‘paizanjoe,’

[Note: I stopped writing on this thread to allow others to have a discussion on the subjects of your choice. Since all of that discussion came to a halt, I am writing about your dishonesty in blaming me of doing something that I did not do.]

You wrote on 2 Mar 2016, “Again I answer to all your points in italics, since either you clearly do not know what you write and how to have a discussion.” You wrote that your answers are in Italics. Let me place the first ‘Italic’ sentences that should be your answer to my question, “How could any make a collective agreement without making it known about who have agreed to that agreement?” This was my question and you admitted that you are answering that question. I did not see your answer to my question in the sentences in Italics that followed my question as you posted.

Quote begins, “Let me ask you a very general question. Why do you have to name a person(s) on a public forum to address a general change that needs to happen? Do you take pride in the name and shame game? If not, what defines this purpose?

Let me put another question, if we have to answer everyone with meekness, gentleness and seasoned with salt? How do you achieve that with the tactic you recommend?

In Christendom, there are weak believers, there are strong believers. When one wants to eradicate a social evil or take necessary steps to eradicate it. There are necessary steps by which believers resort to. The accusation and judgemental channel does not work here. For example, if a new believer, a woman comes to the church and forgets to cover her hair. Would you:

·         Name her in the church and Shame her for not covering her hair?

·         Or, would you have one of the elder sister take her to side and explain it to her gently why it needs to be done and let the spirit guide her?

This is how we arrive at the consensus, or we arrive at a mutual agreement. Because it is not you who is dictating the terms, but the spirit and it is the same spirit which controls each one of us.” Quote ends.

In these six paragraphs, I did not see the answer to my question. On the contrary, you started with woman without head covering. When a person talks to a woman or a man about something that is to be corrected, then that is not a consensus making process. It is a talking process as explained by the Lord in Mathew 18.

On 1 Mar 2016, you wrote in your second paragraph, “If you say, step forward, start show boldness and show it all. I would come back to you and say, it is my freedom in Christ to approach a subject matter as the spirit in me deems fit.” It was you who wrote all those qualifications on a person, in your first posting. I wrote that you do not have those qualifications that you required of others. To this you indicated that I was the one who wrote those qualifications. I denied your caricature and say that you required those characteristics in those who participate on this thread. In reply to my posting pointing to you that those words are yours and not mine, what did you write as your reply? Let me quote your words as you wrote in ‘Italics.’

Quote begins, “This is your thought and your belief. Because if I said these statement, you expressly said that these statements should come with ‘names’ attached. I have given an open forum for discussion where one can accept this problem and help enhance this discussion. We have the spirit of unity. The boldness could come in phases. But that is how the person lets the spirit leads them into. ‘If’ there is not boldness there would not respond in anyway. That is why the word ‘if’ was used. They could come anyway they liked.” Quote ends.

As you came and challenged others to have boldness, why are you saying, “The boldness could come in phases?” If the boldness comes in phases, why did you demand that others should have boldness to begin with? By this statement, you admitted that you do not have the boldness, which is to come in the future in phases. At the same time, you demand that others should have it.

If I go through the rest of your posting, then it could be seen that you did not answer any of my questions. However, you wrote something to make many to think that you did. You don’t need boldness to answer my questions, but you need integrity and honesty.

I mentioned to you that you mentioned that I mentioned some verses. I did not refer to any verses as you wrote on 2 Mar 2016. When I pointed that out to you, you posted something by addressing as “Koshy/Rick.” What Rick wrote was not what I wrote. You must withdraw from such practices to associate me with another person without a cause.

You should answer my questions from my postings of 1 Mar 2016. Your postings of 2 Mar 2016 are examples of dishonesty.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 10 Mar 2016 8:32:19 AM Close

Dear ‘Koshy’

It is good you have responded. Let me try and explain you points back to you again in italics bold

[Note: I stopped writing on this thread to allow others to have a discussion on the subjects of your choice. Since all of that discussion came to a halt, I am writing about your dishonesty in blaming me of doing something that I did not do.]

If you are talking about dishonesty, I think either you choose to read what is relevant to youand run with it OR you really have not read what I had written. As a person, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.  I had clearly stated in that mail the following - For the mail below, it had happened that it was addressed to Rick and you simultaneously, but only your name was mentioned since I generally type these things on a word.doc and had forgotten to add the names in the address. Apologies for that. I will have that corrected now. My comments to some of your additional points have been marked in italics. – This was it. Guess you missed this and the next post.  

You wrote on 2 Mar 2016, “Again I answer to all your points in italics, since either you clearly do not know what you write and how to have a discussion.” You wrote that your answers are in Italics. Let me place the first ‘Italic’ sentences that should be your answer to my question, “How could any make a collective agreement without making it known about who have agreed to that agreement?” This was my question and you admitted that you are answering that question. I did not see your answer to my question in the sentences in Italics that followed my question as you posted.

Quote begins, “Let me ask you a very general question. Why do you have to name a person(s) on a public forum to address a general change that needs to happen? Do you take pride in the name and shame game? If not, what defines this purpose?

Let me put another question, if we have to answer everyone with meekness, gentleness and seasoned with salt? How do you achieve that with the tactic you recommend?

In Christendom, there are weak believers, there are strong believers. When one wants to eradicate a social evil or take necessary steps to eradicate it. There are necessary steps by which believers resort to. The accusation and judgemental channel does not work here. For example, if a new believer, a woman comes to the church and forgets to cover her hair. Would you:

·         Name her in the church and Shame her for not covering her hair?

·         Or, would you have one of the elder sister take her to side and explain it to her gently why it needs to be done and let the spirit guide her?

This is how we arrive at the consensus, or we arrive at a mutual agreement. Because it is not you who is dictating the terms, but the spirit and it is the same spirit which controls each one of us.” Quote ends.

In these six paragraphs, I did not see the answer to my question. On the contrary, you started with woman without head covering. When a person talks to a woman or a man about something that is to be corrected, then that is not a consensus making process. It is a talking process as explained by the Lord in Mathew 18.

I still go back to asking the question that I have asked. If the process of the betterment of this issue could be done in a more peaceful manner for the present and future course. Do we have to do what you said of telling everyone to come boldly naming people?

I used the example to demonstrate a methodology. You could use two approaches. You can use the same approach What do you want to do? Gain or lose a life in Christ?  

On 1 Mar 2016, you wrote in your second paragraph, “If you say, step forward, start show boldness and show it all. I would come back to you and say, it is my freedom in Christ to approach a subject matter as the spirit in me deems fit.” It was you who wrote all those qualifications on a person, in your first posting. I wrote that you do not have those qualifications that you required of others. To this you indicated that I was the one who wrote those qualifications. I denied your caricature and say that you required those characteristics in those who participate on this thread. In reply to my posting pointing to you that those words are yours and not mine, what did you write as your reply? Let me quote your words as you wrote in ‘Italics.’

Quote begins, “This is your thought and your belief. Because if I said these statement, you expressly said that these statements should come with ‘names’ attached. I have given an open forum for discussion where one can accept this problem and help enhance this discussion. We have the spirit of unity. The boldness could come in phases. But that is how the person lets the spirit leads them into. ‘If’ there is not boldness there would not respond in anyway. That is why the word ‘if’ was used. They could come anyway they liked.” Quote ends.

As you came and challenged others to have boldness, why are you saying, “The boldness could come in phases?” If the boldness comes in phases, why did you demand that others should have boldness to begin with? By this statement, you admitted that you do not have the boldness, which is to come in the future in phases. At the same time, you demand that others should have it.

Again – let me give you what you wrote on your first post –

Dear ‘paizanjoe,’

You wrote, “My question and topic for discussion is, how many of us in this forum or community has seen this? How many of us believe this is right? How many of us, if we have the boldness, confess that it was done in our case? How many of us can step forward and help eradicate this evil within our community?” The first step to show the boldness, confession, stepping forward to eradicate, etc. should be done using the person’s full name, as it is officially known. Otherwise, the person is not showing his boldness in confessing to eradicate by stepping forward.

Shalom Malekim!!!

My answer to you still is the same. Why? Boldness comes in phases. You might not have understood this because, you are not grasping what I meant.

It is like the farmer who threw seeds in the good field there were levels of fruits that came out. Some people will show the boldness immediately, some people later, some people much later and some people would choose not to name themselves and still work for the betterment in silence and secrecy. But all still work because the boldness that comes from within could be demonstrated in public or in private. That is what I meant

When I write How many of us, includes me. I think I started the topic. So, I have shown that boldness. If others have not now. They will maybe in the future. But forcing them to use their names if they dont want to is not correct. If they want to stay in the sidelines, and do the needful, it is fine. Another example which i could use to explain what I mean't was when someone who is afraid of heights, takes hold of his fear and shows courage by climbing the ladder on his own. He is showing and naming himself to public - but he conquering the fear for himself. In the same manner, even in this topic. the boldness should come from within, it doesnt matter if you name yourself - it should work in you and you should try and help eradicate it in any way possible.

 

If I go through the rest of your posting, then it could be seen that you did not answer any of my questions. However, you wrote something to make many to think that you did. You don’t need boldness to answer my questions, but you need integrity and honesty.

Being judgemental even after a clarification provided shows people around a different sign.

I mentioned to you that you mentioned that I mentioned some verses. I did not refer to any verses as you wrote on 2 Mar 2016. When I pointed that out to you, you posted something by addressing as “Koshy/Rick.” What Rick wrote was not what I wrote. You must withdraw from such practices to associate me with another person without a cause.

I already cleared this matter and even apologised with the reason of why it happened. But you still remain bitter. This is something I cannot help you with.

You should answer my questions from my postings of 1 Mar 2016. Your postings of 2 Mar 2016 are examples of dishonesty.

Here you are being judgemental. Again.

I now stop posting on this thread. 

Regards,

Joe.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 11 Mar 2016 4:09:19 PM Close

Dear ‘paizanjoe,’

Even after all these days and three or four postings, I still do not read your answer to my question, “How could any make a collective agreement without making it known about who have agreed to that agreement?” What is your answer? What you wrote as, “I still go back to asking the question that I have asked. …” is not the answer.

On the lack of boldness, stepping forward, etc. I did not ask you any question. However, I made it clear to you that when you are asking for boldness, confession, stepping forward, etc. from others, you should show them first. That is what the Lord Jesus Christ taught in His ‘Sermon on the Mount.’ You tried to make those requirements as mine and not yours. I pointed that to you. Now, you have admitted that you are not bold, because you have not stepped forward to provide your name. When a person is not bold, then he/she should be cowardice.

However, you have confessed that you received dowry. How much dowry did you get? Since you admitted that you received dowry, you should also know about how much was that dowry? If you want us to wait for you to have an improvement in the phase of boldness, we will wait till you have that much boldness.

We will continue, when you have the boldness to tell us about the magnitude of your dowry that you received from your in-law. We will also wait for you to improve on your stepwise improvement by phases in boldness to tell us about your name. That will help us to verify your claims.  

I will address all other things that you have to write on this thread after you have the right phase of boldness to step forward and confess your name.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 11 Mar 2016 7:16:52 PM Close

Dear Mr Koshy,

You are persistent in a lot of ways. Though I don’t wish to express the ways you are at this forum since I have already closed this topic. I will address this, one last time and then leave you to your devices.

As always in italics.

Even after all these days and three or four postings, I still do not read your answer to my question, “How could any make a collective agreement without making it known about who have agreed to that agreement?” What is your answer? What you wrote as, “I still go back to asking the question that I have asked. …” is not the answer.

I am now clear that you have not read any of posts that were in this thread. I would appeal that you would read it once, twice or maybe thrice. To see my answers. If you still have not understood it, I don’t think it is time for you to understand. You can believe or decide what you want.

On the lack of boldness, stepping forward, etc. I did not ask you any question. However, I made it clear to you that when you are asking for boldness, confession, stepping forward, etc. from others, you should show them first. That is what the Lord Jesus Christ taught in His ‘Sermon on the Mount.’ You tried to make those requirements as mine and not yours. I pointed that to you. Now, you have admitted that you are not bold, because you have not stepped forward to provide your name. When a person is not bold, then he/she should be cowardice.

Here again, you have judged a person. And again, I had clarified with the earlier mail and rectified the error, but you still hold on to miniscule things and make it sound like a sin unto death. I nor no brother can help you in your thinking. Furthermore, if someone accepts his mistake or wants to communicate his desire, he can do it to the Lord directly. He does not need ‘step forward’ as in ‘your terms’. I have only clarified what I meant by step forwar d- you can choose your understanding as you desire. That is your freedom in Christ.

However, you have confessed that you received dowry. How much dowry did you get? Since you admitted that you received dowry, you should also know about how much was that dowry? If you want us to wait for you to have an improvement in the phase of boldness, we will wait till you have that much boldness.

I would want to ask you one question – Where I have confessed ‘I have got dowry’ or any of the rest of the sentences that was mentioned? As stated earlier, you do not read the posts, nor do you wish gauge the discussion but participate based on what you perceive is right. That too, is your call.

We will continue, when you have the boldness to tell us about the magnitude of your dowry that you received from your in-law. We will also wait for you to improve on your stepwise improvement by phases in boldness to tell us about your name. That will help us to verify your claims.  

I will address all other things that you have to write on this thread after you have the right phase of boldness to step forward and confess your name.

I will now explicitly state that, due to your posts and the tone that you use – (I had gone through a lot of the archives of the previous discussions in the forums. Especially the ones you have participated. If you go through them and what ‘you have written over the years’, I as an individual gave you the benefit of the doubt, maybe because of the language. But now it is quite clear. I don’t wish to participate in any discussion with you on this subject anymore.

Regards,

Joe (This is my name, if you want to accept that, you can. If not, it is still your call and your freedom)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : palatty   View Profile   Since : 13 Mar 2016 1:06:09 PM Close

In simple terms, in the Indian context, dowry is the money or material things given to a bride during her marriage. It is illegal to demand or accept dowry. At the same time, the female child has equal rights in the parental property just as her male sibling. An Indian Christian as a law abiding citizen would do well to NOT indulge in demanding or accepting dowry, but ensure that the female child is not deprived of her legitimate right in the parental property.

God has blessed me with two children, a daughter and a son.  During my daughter’s marriage, we the parents decided to divide  our property as follows:

The share in the ancestral property is to be given to both children in accordance with the law of the land.

The self- earned property to be bequeathed to the the children equally after keeping minimum requisite amount/property for the parents. The survivor alone would inherit this share after the demise of one of the parental couple. After the death of both the parents, the children will equally inherit this share as ell as the incremental assets if any .No liability is laid on either of the children.

Will anyone please comment on this adjustment, as I have still time to make amends if necessary.

Paulose

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::



HOME
Back to Top