u/DrPablisimo

I saw a clip of a campmeeting sermon, where a preacher preached against beards, saying he saw more beards in one church than the world, and that having beards is pride.

Many people take this suffering servant passage as indicating that the Lord Jesus' beard was plucked out as a part of His sufferings.

Psalm 50
^(6) I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

The speaker said that beards had nothing to do with the formula for anointing?

Psalm 133
1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

^(2) It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

^(3) As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

Notice the reference to the ointment being poured out, and the beard. If you read the Hebrew of verse 1, the word 'dwell' translates a word that means 'sitting around.'

Compare that to Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

^(2) And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

^(3) And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

^(4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

These brethren were sitting around in unity. The Father sent the Spirit as the Lord Jesus had promised. Christ is our High Priest also. Remember that picture described in Psalm 133 of the ointment running down Aaron's beard.

The Old Testament word translated 'elder' is 'zaqen'-- which means bearded one. The Lord took of the spirit (or Spirit) that was on Moses and put it on seventy elders. Elders carry over into the New Testament, with the church having elders appointed to be bishops/overseers of the flock.

Now, if we wanted to be legalistic, we might expect those who are ordained to pastor to have beards. I don't think we should be legalistic about it or treat it as required.

But beards are definitely NOT presented in a negative light in scripture, and if one wanted to be nit picky and legalistic about it, it makes more sense to insist on men, or at least church leaders, growing them than to treat having them as a sin.

IMO, some of the anti-beard sermons one-up some of the KJV-onlyist arguments for ignorance and stupidity.

I've seen posts about this sort of thing. The husband commits adultery or texts another woman... and now he's in therapy.

I mean I understand there are people who do both, but it seemed like 'therapy' was supposed to have something to do with the adultery.

Does anyone thing that therapy helps people overcome sin or helps them get out of sin? I mean, there are plenty of psychologists, even state governments, that have lobbied to prevent therapists from advising individuals away from certain sins, a battle fought in the courts.

I get if the story were the man had texted women online and now he's meeting with a pastor, or he joined a men's accountability prayer group, or something like that.

Is going to therapy even supposed to help people overcome sin? Now, there is something called Nouthetic Counseling where the counselor gives advice out of the Bible. That's not your typical 'therapy' and I don't think it follows the licensing.

I have seen a big cultural shift in my lifetime toward the idea of regular people who are not mentally ill going to psychologists and psychologists. There has a push for higher education with many multiplied millions getting degrees, funded with student loans (driving up education costs). Psychology is an option, and you can't do much that is specifically, unless you get a specialization. We end up with lots of counselors, therapists, etc.

At the same time, going to psychologists and therapists is more mainstream. I'm thinking human kind went for thousands of years without psychologists before Freud. I've also seen the attitude online that it's okay to leave a spouse who won't go to counseling. But some people don't really believe in it.

There are also counselors whose values do not align with Christianity. There are therapists and counselors who do not see keeping the marriage together as the goal, but rather some other vision of human well-being or human flourishing. One married couple I know went to see a psychologist, and fulfilled a husband's fear and said, "You two do not need to be together."

A cross-cultural psychologist once pointed out that there were much fewer psychologists doing counseling in other parts of the world that had collectivist cultures. People are more interconnected with their families. You go home and the house is full of extended family, uncles who give you advice whether you want it or not, and you never lack someone to talk to. Counselors like this are popular in cities where people work long hours, there is a culture of not being too close with people at work, then people go home to empty apartments, then hire someone to talk to about their problems.

I suppose there could be some Biblical counseling that might help someone who fell into sin. And maybe the therapy might help with managing anger, communication issues, and other niches where there is some specialized training. Some ideas I've heard of from the psychological counseling sound rather damaging. They have gotten away from telling people to express anger by hitting a pillow, but the idea that it is normal to fantasize, sexually, about people who are not your partner seems rather damaging.

I've come across the idea of 'boundaries' being used to argue for not doing as one should as a marriage partner or an employee. Psychology, and pop-psychology, can be treated like a religion, like a guide for life.

The 'Christian Counselor' could also be drawing from some methods that aren't particularly Christian. Now, there may be niches in therapy and Christian Counseling that are designed to help with sin issues, like porn addiction.

I also heard a 'Christian counseling' show on the radio, just a bit of it, while driving, a couple of times. There was a caller who had a marital issue. The counselor didn't have a lot of info, and I remember him saying something like, "But if your husband is saying XZY, that's verbal abuse, and you need to separate from him and..." He hadn't talked to the husband. The wife hadn't said her husband had done whatever the counselor on the radio had said. Even if he had, the Bible says 'Let not the wife depart from her husband.' Getting a separate residence could bankrupt a lot of people in the city where he said this. And he was planting the idea of a low bar for separation in the caller's head and in the minds of lots of listeners, and presenting it as 'Christian' counseling. Twice, I heard the show and he said something like that.

I've not delved into the world of going to therapy. I'm sitting on the sidelines seeing the culture change as I age. Therapy also seems to be treated as a religion.

Is there any reason to think that going to therapy is going to help someone who committed adultery or sent flirtatious texts? Does therapy help people overcome sin?

During times when houses were appreciating or if rent (six month lease, monthly or AirBnB) have any of you pursued a strategy of buying a house every year or two?

If you are going to live there, there are loan types that allow for low down payments. If you can find a place that is run down (cosmetic only), put a little into it to increase value, then move in, live there for the minimum amount needed as a requirement for the loan condition and the low downpayment, then move elsewhere.

Some of the USDA loans in rural areas allow for no down payment, but the sales price has to be relatively low for this to work, and it is not available in every zip code.

The idea is to build up a portfolio of rental houses where the tenant pays off your mortgages. But then you have to be unclogging toilets and changing lightbulbs. or paying to outsource that... not to mention moving house every couple of years. If houses depreciate (as they rarely do) or if rent drops or if all the banks called the loans at the same time, you might be in trouble. Using multiple banks might help, but they sell loans and one could end up with both.

A downside is that children may not have 'the childhood home' in their memory. Moving is also a pain.

Who has used this strategy to accumulate assets over time? What are some of the risks, pitfalls, etc.

I am planning on purchasing a house this week (offer on it already, with a preapproval letter for a mortgage), but I'd probably better fix a retaining wall at my current home before renting (or Airbnbing) out this property. The 'new' house I am moving to also needs new carpet and paint before I move in, so I will need some funds for that.

I was thinking of getting a HELOC on my existing house to finance a portion of funds for the retaining wall. Should I jump on this and get a HELOC before locking in my loan rate? Should I try to get a mortgage broker who can do both at once? Or at this point, should I just take care of it after the close? I think they don't like us taking out loans during the period we are closing, right?

Under a standard Georgia Realtors contract, the Buyer is for commissions to the broker responsible if 'immediate family' purchase real estate.

I don't think there is a legal definition of the term 'immediate family'. One could argue that it is wife or husband and single children, or it could include your parents and children, maybe even siblings.

So you sign an agreement, and your 50-year-old brother buys a house with another broker. Your broker could hypothetically sue you for a commission, right? Your 25-year-old daughter buys a house with her husband. The realtor could sue you for that, too, right?

I don't know if they would win. Maybe the defense could just argue that the interpretation of a poorly drafted contract should not favor the drafter of the contract.

As I recall, renter contracts were far worse, with Georgia Realtors suggesting all kinds of awful things in their contract, like the landlord busting into your apartment to check on certain things. A land lord who came up with a one-page contract on his own probably wouldn't have thought of that.

I notice on this show that the underlying assumption is that marriage can be a trial arrangement, that if a couple do not work out, that getting divorced is 'no big deal', that a failed marriage is a 'learning experience', nay, maybe even a good thing for the victim of such an experience (yippee!)

The 'experts' need to agree on a better definition of marriage and screen appropriately. They need to find people who agree with this statement, "When a couple married, they should stay faithful to each other for life and stay together no matter what" and if they discuss exceptions for separation or divorce it would be stuff like violence or adultery. Don't match anyone up who is not very much averse to the idea of committing adultery.

Ask 'what would you do if your husband/wife...' type questions to screen out those who are ideologically incompatible with an arranged marriage working out.

These exceptions need to be agreed upon by both parties they match up. They can also exclude from consideration anyone who would divorce for less than adultery or safety. All couples must be willing to stay with a partner even if he lives with his parents or if he feels like he isn't physically attracted to her or if he thinks she talks to much.

If they find out one sees the other and isn't attracted to the other, (or doesn't like that he is wearing a skirt), that individual can run off before the ceremony.

Parents need to be on-board with the wedding or the experts can reject the couple as candidates. Why set the couple up for in-law drama?

Anyone they put on the show needs to be willing to have sex with their spouse early on, pretty much going out the gate.

'Experts' need to screen everyone they consider for past sexual history and what they would accept for past sexual history of a partner. If a man has had sex in the past nine months, he needs to make sure partners are not pregnant. Women who are sexually active need a pregnancy test. Pay a lot of attention to matching people up based on sexual morality and lifestyle. Don't match someone who is 'conservative' in this regard with someone who sleeps around.

Match people up based on faith and spirituality. Don't match a Christian with a New Ager, or an atheist or secular person up with a church-attending Christian or a spiritualist who wants to go to seances. They may try to do this already. There is a pastor there. For Christians, he could try to see how seriously they would take their faith when it comes to issues of marriage. It irks me to see people talking about going to church on the show, then not acting out the role Christianity teaches for husbands, for example. Of course, the pastor at times seemed rather eager to suggest the word divorce, at least as presented in the editing, that do not seem consistent with the Christian faith, IMO.

They must stop calling these relationships 'experiments'. That implies they are studies to see what works out. It doesn't sound like they consider them to be real marriages. The experts are giving couples permission to divorce after so many weeks, which isn't a moral thing to do. And if the experts matched them up, that doesn't mean they own their relationship or have any right to give them a right to divorce. It is unconscionable that they present divorce as a valid option, especially for a lot of these couples. It would generally be inappropriate for someone to suggest to an 'expert' on the show, out of the blue, that he or she divorce his/her wife/husband. It is inappropriate for them to suggest this to these participants on the show.

Arranged marriages can really work, but there have to be some ground rules for it to work. There are cultures with arranged marriages with lower divorce rates, and some cultures have match ups through dating customs and arranged marriages with lower divorce rates for arranged marriages. But the ground rules are that these are _real marriages_ for life, not 'experiments.'

[Edit: I agree with a user's suggestion that 'contestants' align on political views, or at least have to be flexible. I would add they need to have similar views on morals, as well, on a variety of topics.]

I'm watching an old episode. Madison's dad told her she went on the show to meet someone, and maybe it was one of the other men.

If I were in his shoes, I'd probably tell my daughter I was very disappointed in her for having an affair. I'd probably ask her (maybe indirectly) if she'd done the deed with her affair partner, and urge her to beg her husband's forgiveness, reminding her that she had actually married the man and committed for life.

It is immoral for these people to go on the show and marry someone unless they are willing to commit for life, no matter what the other person looks like or no matter what their personality is (and they can run the other way before tying the knot). Realistically, though, it's just crazy to go on a show like this.

These 'experts' have low success rates. If half of marriages end in divorce... what are the stats for MAFS in the USA? Are 10% of the marriages even together after five years? I think by the end of the show, they had a 20% success rate.

The 'cast' take divorce relatively lightly, even the pastor, which I find rather troublesome.

What's up with the sound mixing, with the sound blasting over the dialogue in the decision day episode and the episode before it? It's like a newbie YouTube content creator did the music.

I wanted to share this article written by someone trained in psychology:
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10164871584932008&id=589837007&post_id=589837007_10164871584932008&rdid=9QRYc3cz8PoYHoD4#

Often on this forum, posters quickly recommend counseling or try to diagnose someone’s psychological issues over the Internet with very limited information. The author of this article—a woman trained in psychology—describes why she believes the public’s distrust of modern psychology has grown and why she no longer identifies herself as a psychotherapist.

She argues that psychology has become heavily influenced by political and ideological frameworks, including within “Christian counseling,” and that this shift affects how therapists interpret marriage, family, responsibility, and identity. She gives examples such as accountability being reframed as “oppression,” wives being encouraged to “put themselves first” in ways that undermine family commitments, and students returning from university with beliefs that conflict with their families’ values or faith. She also warns about what she calls “therapeutic self‑worship,” where personal feelings are treated as the highest authority, and about the rise of therapeutic language being used to avoid accountability. Her broader point is that human beings are moral, relational, and spiritual beings, and she argues that psychology needs to recover grounding in philosophy, theology, ethics, and a fuller understanding of human nature.

I'm not putting that out as a binary choice.

I started a thread asking if men wanted to date shorter women. Most didn't care, and some said women were generally the ones hung up on the issue.

I looked up average height in Indonesia and the Philippines with a Google search.

The average adult height in Indonesia is approximately 164 cm (5 ft 4.5 in) for men, and it is approximately 154 cm (5 ft 0.5 in) for women. These figures reflect national population averages across diverse ethnic groups.

The average adult height in the Philippines is approximately 163 cm (5 ft 4 in) for men, and it is approximately 150 cm (4 ft 11 in) for women. These measurements represent typical adult stature based on national survey data.

For western men (which I am assuming is the primary audience here) who want to find shorter women, either because of their own preference or that of many of the women they encounter, how many of you would consider looking for a girlfriend or bride in these countries?

I spent many years in Indonesia. One of the members of my household got to be about 5'7". He was considered a little short in the US, but when he reached that height in Indonesia, we went to the mall, and he was the size of adult men walking around there, or maybe even a bit taller.

Men: do you want to date (and/or marry) a woman taller than you? Or do you prefer dating someone shorter than you? Is the same height okay? If she is taller, how much taller is okay?

If you are already married, feel free to chime in.

I went overseas a few months after 'I Kissed Dating Goodbye' came out. I am not sure what constitutes 'purity culture.' I think I kind of missed it, if it still isn't going on.

But I heard a bit on NPR about someone who was raised in 'purity culture' and had written a book against. The announcer explained, as if it were shocking or odd, that the author's church strictly forbad premarital sex. As far as I know, every church I've ever even visited was against that. In the 80's, the youth pastor at my church taught a series on the topic, preaching against all kinds of extramarital teen sexual activity.

Was I in 'purity culture'?

I saw a documentary about purity culture. It featured a home school family where the dad and daughter went to a 'purity ball.' The dad matched a girl around 18 up with a young man for marriage. It showed having teens sign a pledge and get some kind of purity promise ring, pledging virginity until marriage. I think that video might have shown sex ed in a classroom where very kid had to hold a cookie as it was passed around, and then the teacher asked who wanted to eat it after everyone had touched it, then compared it to sexuality.

I read other commentary about 'purity culture' involving excessive blaming girls for boys being sexually interested in them.

I've never been to a church that had promise rings. I'm not in favor of it. I think all Christians should live sexually moral without declaring some kind of oath or going through a ritual for it. I've never been in a subculture that has daddy-daughter balls where they dance together. I do think it is a good idea for Christians to have our own dating and match up culture and that our own culture's version of dating is flawed.

Was I in 'purity culture'? What elements have to be there for something to be 'purity culture'? Are there specific denominations in a purity culture movement? Is it some churches and it spans across denominations? Does it still exist?

What is purity culture?