Holy Matrimony

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:
First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Which part of "I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue." wasn't quite clear? [/qb]

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

Apparently all of it. But don't you dare chide her on her reading comprehension... You will swiftly be told that you have no mastery of English.

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by mountaingal:

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might have do not have the capacity to do so by reason of opposing belief.

well, because i believe differently from you, i believe your answer is incorrect.

Apparently, no one is allowed to have a differing opinion. Makes me wonder if the only acceptable answer is the one she has, why bother ask the question in the first place. [/qb]

Especially when she is contrasting 'holy matrimony' (a religious concept) with 'civil union' (a legal concept currently valid only in
Vermont).

[DC]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
In short the difference is

One is bound in heaven and on earth and the other is bound only on the earth.

One is spiritual in import the other is strictly legal.

One is bound by a covenant of love (God is love) the other is bound by a covenant of law. [/QB]

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

mmmmmmm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion but I'll have to say I do not agree either..

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:
First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Which part of "I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue." wasn't quite clear? [/qb]

To refresh your memory let's look again at what Fledgist said:

Marriage is everywhere defined by law. In most of the world, including the US and Jamaica, this is civil law. 'Holiness' is an entirely religious matter; which means that it is something to be assessed privately, rather than by agencies of the state. The issue was never 'holy matrimony' it was, and is, marriage.

First of all to agree with fledgist says that you agree that holiness is a matter to be assessed privately rather than by agencies of the state. As I have shown you since you obviously don't realize it a Minister act as an agent for God as well as the state, in that he has been given the privilege of performing HOLY MATRIMONY.

Second of all HOLY MATRIMONY is marriage but not all marriages are HOLY!

Now what did you not understand?

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by DC:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
In short the difference is

One is bound in heaven and on earth and the other is bound only on the earth.

One is spiritual in import the other is strictly legal.

One is bound by a covenant of love (God is love) the other is bound by a covenant of law. [/qb]

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

mmmmmmm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion but I'll have to say I do not agree either.. [/QB]

Sorry I don't have the time to go into a lengthy explanation but you can rest assured that I am correct but check with you pastor.

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:
First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Which part of "I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue." wasn't quite clear? [/qb]

To refresh your memory let's look again at what Fledgist said:

Marriage is everywhere defined by law. In most of the world, including the US and Jamaica, this is civil law. 'Holiness' is an entirely religious matter; which means that it is something to be assessed privately, rather than by agencies of the state. The issue was never 'holy matrimony' it was, and is, marriage.

First of all to agree with fledgist says that you agree that holiness is a matter to be assessed privately rather than by agencies of the state. As I have shown you since you obviously don't realize it a Minister act as an agent for God as well as the state, in that he has been given the privilege of performing HOLY MATRIMONY.

Second of all HOLY MATRIMONY is marriage but not all marriages are HOLY!

Nonsense!

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by mountaingal:

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might have do not have the capacity to do so by reason of opposing belief.

well, because i believe differently from you, i believe your answer is incorrect.

Apparently, no one is allowed to have a differing opinion. Makes me wonder if the only acceptable answer is the one she has, why bother ask the question in the first place. [/qb]

It's okay to speak to me and not about me (((CEW))) my name is Jedi...can you give me a more acceptable answer than Fledgist's since obviously you don't have one of your own. Go ahead and tell me that I am wrong.

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:

Originally posted by mountaingal:

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might have do not have the capacity to do so by reason of opposing belief.

well, because i believe differently from you, i believe your answer is incorrect.

Apparently, no one is allowed to have a differing opinion. Makes me wonder if the only acceptable answer is the one she has, why bother ask the question in the first place.

It's okay to speak to me and not about me (((CEW))) my name is Jedi...can you give me a more acceptable answer than Fledgist's since obviously you don't have one of your own. Go ahead and tell me that I am wrong.

In this instance, my preference was to speak to MG, which I am 'allowed' to do. As for giving you an "acceptable answer", acceptable by whose standards? You are entitled to an opinion and so am I, unless of course you have a monopoly on what is truth.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by CEW:
[QB]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. O-Kaaaaaaay! Then I guess I am being irrational.

First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Secondly, 'holy matrimony' is, IMO, a churchified expression.

{Jedi: Wrong! Picture you using the word churchified [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] }

The issue is marriage, which I accept to be a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman. Whether or not two people make their vows in a church, or on a beach somewhere is irrelevant.

The issue in case you have missed it is holy matrimony as compared to a civil union and there is a big difference.

A officiating person is still required to say something to the effect of "By the authority vested in me by <law of state, province, country, whatever> I now declare you husband and wife".

There is a BIG difference between a minister upon whom all the rights of agency of both heaven and earth has been bestowed and a JUDGE upon whom is conferred the rights of acting on behalf of the state. HUGE differnce!

It is interesting that though you have stopped short of another calling this another 'gay thread', your words: "...holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties..." strongly implies, in the latter, two persons of the same gender.

But you see I never said the "gay" word so it is your assumption, and based on that assumption you have made your response.

Personally, this is a whole different kettle of fish, and is most definitely different than marriage, as I have accepted it. A much better clarification of what consitutes a 'civil union' would be nice, though again, I am inclined to go with Fledgist's position as stated above in his last post.

I believe I made myself clear enough, the question reads: "IS THERE ANY COMPARISON BETWEEN HOLY MATRIMONY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND A CIVIL UNION BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE?" But obviously instead of attempting to answer the question as it is read, everyone has run headlong trying to squeeze the "gay" question into it assuming that because I am a Christian then I must mean....
Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might, probably wouldn't do so because of opposing belief.

Holy Matrimony Is a covenant between a man and a woman made in the presence of a Minister acting as an agent for God and the State.
It is a holy covenant which is binding in heaven as well as on the earth. It takes on the all the characteristics of God in that it is first of all holy, secondly eternal, and thirdly an immutable covenant that cannot be broken. PERIOD. Hence we see that Jesus said that if a man and a woman chooses to divorce let them do so but they may never marry anyone else because to do so is to commit adultery. Why? because once a covenant has been made before God it can never be broken.

{Fledgist: Apparently, then, people who are not Christians cannot get married. As to why, see below.}


A Civil Agreement Between two people
Is a legally binding agreement between two parties which carries all expressed and implied rights of the State and is valid as long as both parties have agreed to remain bound to the agreement. However either party can at anytime withdraw from this agreement by filing for a divorce.

{Fledgist: A civil agreement between two people is a contract, enforceable on the parties by the courts. Marriage is a legal term, definable in law, and granting rights which are enforceable in law to the parties jointly.

{Jedi: What is the difference?}

Because marriage is definable, and defined, by law, the law, not your private interpretation, determines the conditions of its termination.

{Jedi: The law does not determine the termination of oaths taken before God, and since you don't believe in God it is useless for you to have even entered this discussion in the first place.}

These are of two kinds:

Annulment, signifying that the marriage was from the beginning a legal nullity.

Divorce, signifying that the marriage has ceased to exist and the legal rights appertaining to it become void.}

{Jedi: Oaths of bethrothal are binding until death in holy matrimony regardless if the parties should exercise due rights under the law. What do you fail to understand, this obviously does not apply to you.}


In short the difference is

One is bound in heaven and on earth and the other is bound only on the earth.

One is spiritual in import the other is strictly legal.

One is bound by a covenant of love (God is love) the other is bound by a covenant of law. [/qb]

I got married by a judge. Are you telling me that my wife and I are not bound in love? [/qb]

You are bound by the law only.

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by CEW:
[QB]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. O-Kaaaaaaay! Then I guess I am being irrational.

First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Secondly, 'holy matrimony' is, IMO, a churchified expression.

{Jedi: Wrong! Picture you using the word churchified [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] }

The issue is marriage, which I accept to be a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman. Whether or not two people make their vows in a church, or on a beach somewhere is irrelevant.

The issue in case you have missed it is holy matrimony as compared to a civil union and there is a big difference.

A officiating person is still required to say something to the effect of "By the authority vested in me by <law of state, province, country, whatever> I now declare you husband and wife".

There is a BIG difference between a minister upon whom all the rights of agency of both heaven and earth has been bestowed and a JUDGE upon whom is conferred the rights of acting on behalf of the state. HUGE differnce!

It is interesting that though you have stopped short of another calling this another 'gay thread', your words: "...holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties..." strongly implies, in the latter, two persons of the same gender.

But you see I never said the "gay" word so it is your assumption, and based on that assumption you have made your response.

Personally, this is a whole different kettle of fish, and is most definitely different than marriage, as I have accepted it. A much better clarification of what consitutes a 'civil union' would be nice, though again, I am inclined to go with Fledgist's position as stated above in his last post.

I believe I made myself clear enough, the question reads: "IS THERE ANY COMPARISON BETWEEN HOLY MATRIMONY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND A CIVIL UNION BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE?" But obviously instead of attempting to answer the question as it is read, everyone has run headlong trying to squeeze the "gay" question into it assuming that because I am a Christian then I must mean....
Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might, probably wouldn't do so because of opposing belief.

Holy Matrimony Is a covenant between a man and a woman made in the presence of a Minister acting as an agent for God and the State.
It is a holy covenant which is binding in heaven as well as on the earth. It takes on the all the characteristics of God in that it is first of all holy, secondly eternal, and thirdly an immutable covenant that cannot be broken. PERIOD. Hence we see that Jesus said that if a man and a woman chooses to divorce let them do so but they may never marry anyone else because to do so is to commit adultery. Why? because once a covenant has been made before God it can never be broken.

{Fledgist: Apparently, then, people who are not Christians cannot get married. As to why, see below.}


A Civil Agreement Between two people
Is a legally binding agreement between two parties which carries all expressed and implied rights of the State and is valid as long as both parties have agreed to remain bound to the agreement. However either party can at anytime withdraw from this agreement by filing for a divorce.

{Fledgist: A civil agreement between two people is a contract, enforceable on the parties by the courts. Marriage is a legal term, definable in law, and granting rights which are enforceable in law to the parties jointly.

{Jedi: What is the difference?}


{Fledgist: Between a private contract and a public act? One is enforceable only on the parties to it; the other is enforceable on behalf of the parties to it. That's a big difference.}

Because marriage is definable, and defined, by law, the law, not your private interpretation, determines the conditions of its termination.

{Jedi: The law does not determine the termination of oaths taken before God, and since you don't believe in God it is useless for you to have even entered this discussion in the first place.}


{Fledgist: Translation: I've come up with something you don't have a pat answer to, so you start flailing your arms.}

These are of two kinds:

Annulment, signifying that the marriage was from the beginning a legal nullity.

Divorce, signifying that the marriage has ceased to exist and the legal rights appertaining to it become void.}

{Jedi: Oaths of bethrothal are binding until death in holy matrimony regardless if the parties should exercise due rights under the law. What do you fail to understand, this obviously does not apply to you.}


{Fledgist: Betrothal? You are aware, are you not, that betrothal is a promise to marry not matrimony itself?}

In short the difference is

One is bound in heaven and on earth and the other is bound only on the earth.

One is spiritual in import the other is strictly legal.

One is bound by a covenant of love (God is love) the other is bound by a covenant of law. [/qb]

I got married by a judge. Are you telling me that my wife and I are not bound in love? [/qb]

You are bound by the law only. [/qb]

So you are asserting that the love my wife and I feel for each other does not bind us. Since you do not know us personally, you can have no basis for such a judgment. Once again, you've come up with a lie, and an insulting one at that.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

So you are asserting that the love my wife and I feel for each other does not bind us. Since you do not know us personally, you can have no basis for such a judgment. Once again, you've come up with a lie, and an insulting one at that.



Whatever else you may feel binds you and her together is strictly of a personal nature, however whatever that is, was expressed legally before a judge making it a legal bond. What is not Godly is fleshly. The unbeliever lives by the law of the flesh.

Those who express their undying love by uniting in holy matrimony do so in the presence of the congregation of the Church, in the presence of the hosts of heaven and in the presence of God these being sealed until death do they part, which no man dare put assunder. Its a covenant between two people and Almighty God.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

In this instance, my preference was to speak to MG, which I am 'allowed' to do. As for giving you an "acceptable answer", acceptable by whose standards?
Pardon me however I was always of the opinion that you were a Christian, therefore I hold you to higher standards than I do Fledgist. My mistake.


You are entitled to an opinion and so am I, unless of course you have a monopoly on what is truth.

Certainly you are entitled to you opinion and if I understand you correctly you haven't given it yet so what's your beef here?

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

{Fledgist: Apparently, then, people who are not Christians cannot get married. As to why, see below.}

And again the question asks Is there any comparison between holy matiimony and a civil union.... please stay focused.

{Fledgist: Between a private contract and a public act? One is enforceable only on the parties to it;

Could you enforce a marriage agreement on any other outside party? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

the other is enforceable on behalf of the parties to it. That's a big difference.}

And in the like manner could not a party of either type of contract be sued and the law enforced on behalf of the first party? Again please tell me what is the difference?


{Jedi: The law does not determine the termination of oaths taken before God, and since you don't believe in God it is useless for you to have even entered this discussion in the first place.}

{Fledgist: Translation: I've come up with something you don't have a pat answer to, so you start flailing your arms.}

Oh I believe that quite the opposite is true.

{Fledgist: Betrothal? You are aware, are you not, that betrothal is a promise to marry not matrimony itself?}

Try reading what I said for a change - Oaths of betrothal (promises to marry) are binding until death in holy matrimony...


In short the difference is

One is bound in heaven and on earth and the other is bound only on the earth.

One is spiritual in import the other is strictly legal.

One is bound by a covenant of love (God is love) the other is bound by a covenant of law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got married by a judge. Are you telling me that my wife and I are not bound in love?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are bound by the law only.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you are asserting that the love my wife and I feel for each other does not bind us. Since you do not know us personally, you can have no basis for such a judgment. Once again, you've come up with a lie, and an insulting one at that.

This is so commonplace in all your arguments it is almost laughable. Give me a break!

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:
First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Which part of "I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue." wasn't quite clear? [/qb]

To refresh your memory let's look again at what Fledgist said:

Marriage is everywhere defined by law. In most of the world, including the US and Jamaica, this is civil law. 'Holiness' is an entirely religious matter; which means that it is something to be assessed privately, rather than by agencies of the state. The issue was never 'holy matrimony' it was, and is, marriage.

First of all to agree with fledgist says that you agree that holiness is a matter to be assessed privately rather than by agencies of the state. As I have shown you since you obviously don't realize it a Minister act as an agent for God as well as the state, in that he has been given the privilege of performing HOLY MATRIMONY.

Second of all HOLY MATRIMONY is marriage but not all marriages are HOLY!

Nonsense! [/qb]

Prove it!

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
In this instance, my preference was to speak to MG, which I am 'allowed' to do. As for giving you an "acceptable answer", acceptable by whose standards?
Pardon me however I was always of the opinion that you were a Christian, therefore I hold you to higher standards than I do Fledgist. My mistake.

What crock! Because Fledgist is not a Christian, I cannot agree with him on a particular issue? Just when I thought I had heard it all.

Edited to add:
Instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water, you would do well to remember the words of Jesus: "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." (Luke 16:8) Should I take it He didn't know what He was talking about?