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.
“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.