Holy Matrimony

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[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.



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. [/qb]

In other words, the love my wife and I feel does not matter, but agreement between two people and an imaginary rabbit does. I'm so glad that Christians never, ever, divorce. That keeps other people from being miserable.

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

{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: I have been focused, you don't understand what you're saying.}

{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]


{Fledgist: I'm sorry that you have difficulty understanding a simple concept. A legal marriage creates legal rights which others are obliged to respect. These are rights possessed by the married couple in relation to others. For example, If I were unmarried and had a girlfriend with whom I lived, and she fell ill, some religious bigot could deny me access to her in hospital. If, however, I am married, said bigot, no matter how much s/he might disapprove of the marriage, could not deny the right of access (or if such right was denied, would be subject to court order to grant the right).}

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?

{Fledgist: That makes no sense. Again: a private contract binds *only* the parties to the contract. A *public act* (such as marriage) creates legal rights which others must respect.}


{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: In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.}

{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...

{Fledgist: This is truly weird. It makes the promise to marry the same as the marriage. You really are living on another planet.}


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! [/qb]

In other words, you are refusing to take responsibility for your words. Why is it that this is the standard Christian response? Dishonesty, apparently, is the master Christian virtue.

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Compry:
[qb] I hate getting into these debates but I do have a question for you (((Jedi))).

If my fiance and I decide to forgo a Church wedding and have an intimate gathering on a beach or under a tree, is it no longer holy? Keep in mind that we are both Christians? [/qb]

C'mon Compry you know that where is not the issure here. Who is officiating is. Is it a minister or is it a judge? that is the question. Are you taking your vows before God or before the state? One is branded Holy Matrimony the other is branded a civil union. [/qb]

'Civil union' has a very precise meaning. Let me assure you that getting *married* by a civil officer, such as a judge, is not a civil union.

[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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In other words, you are refusing to take responsibility for your words. Why is it that this is the standard Christian response? Dishonesty, apparently, is the master Christian virtue.


Show me where in here that I said that the "love you have for your wife does not bind you" or what ever? Also please show me where this became a discussion about you and your wife. Then I will take responsibility for it.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[QB] Jedi,

You are trying to make a point for Holy matrimony but you do so failing to realise that all marriages are honoured by God.
(ahem, let me clarify, that is all marriages between a man and a woman done in freedom to the mores and laws of the community in which that person lives)

Marriage between two Christians is a sacrament, and is a likeness of Christ and His Church hence it is called holy matrimony. Christ upheld the union of marriage as unbroken (the ring is a symbol of this unbroken union) and that hasn't changed although churches have redefined marriage to suit themselves. There are now many pastors who have divorced and remarried, that does not change the word of God where marriage is concerned. As to all marriages being honored by God I didnot say that they were not but they are not all holy.

Just remember Jesus spoke out against Herold for beheading John the Baptist who was put to death because he spoke against Herold marrying his brothers wife. Herold was not a believer, A Jew yes, but more a politican than a believer.
Yet God held him to the same standards as any marriage.

Herold was a Jew. Herold married his brothers wife. That was a sin.

Simarily David's marriage to Bathesheba was recognised by God as legal even though he murdered her husband to get her.

David caught hell for what he did so this is a poor example to hold up, even though I see what you are trying to say this has nothing to do with marriage under the new covenant.

Your premise that marriage is indissoluable is where you err.
Scripture does recognise divorce as a dissolution of marriage, the issue like any other sin is the degree to which this decision is driver by lust or the needs for justice.

Marriage may be dissolved on earth but it is not in heaven. Point is Jesus says that anyone who marries the one who has been divorced commits adultry. What does that mean, but that once married before God always married. Jesus makes allowance for divorce if the two cannot reconcile their differences but He makes no allowance for remarriage.

The special nature of marriage is a covenant but covents are ended in the Bible and so can the marriage covenant.

See the above.

While the bible sets guidelines for the culmination of the marriage union, and God hates a divorce and certainly the bible does not make a case for divorce the Bible accepts that "hardness of heart" can cause irrepairable damage to a marriage which makes the one flesh twain.

And your point? Can the twain remarry show me where it says so.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by DC:
[qb] Religion is not necessary to make a marriage acceptable to God.

Jedi: Why not just eliminate God all together then?

If that is the case, then Isaac and Rebekah's recorded marriage was not acceptable to God(found in Genesis). They had no ceremony, no minister and no judge. [/qb]

You are forgetting that in those days Abraham who was Isaacs father and (who by the way sent to get Rebecca to marry his son) God were in close union with each other. They even talked to eachother. My point -why get an ambassador to officiate when you have the King?

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In other words, you are refusing to take responsibility for your words. Why is it that this is the standard Christian response? Dishonesty, apparently, is the master Christian virtue.


Show me where in here that I said that the "love you have for your wife does not bind you" or what ever? Also please show me where this became a discussion about you and your wife. Then I will take responsibility for it. [/qb]

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

You: You are bound by the law only.

Now, note this is a discussion of marriage. I'm married, which is relevant to the discussion. And my wife and I were married by a judge. You had made an assertion about Christians being 'bound in love', while people who had civil ceremonies were not. The fact that this is both untrue and offensive having, it seems, completely passed you by.

What is clear is that, once again, having made statements that are untrue, offensive, and insulting, you are refusing to take any responsibility for what you have written. Doubtless this is the Christian way; certainly, if you are the standard for Christian behaviour, then it is inescapable that to be Christian is to be dishonest and dishonourable.

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:

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.

{Jedi: (((CEW))) plain and simple you are dodging the point. It is not about agreeing with him it is about what you agree with. For a man studying to become a minister you are way out of line.

So you are trying to drag me to your level where you can beat me with your experience, huh? Nice try, but simply more illogical argument.

In otherwords you believe that there is no difference between holy matrimony taking your marriage vows before a minister of God and a civil union taking your marriage vows infront of a judge?

In the first case the union is branded holy and binding in heaven and on earth, in the second it is branded legal and binding on earth. Check it out if you don't know (((CEW))) opinions don't count here. These are statements of facts taht every learned Christian should know.

Please. Every learned Christian - including those on the board - can see through the fallacy of your arguments, which I might add, has no basis in scripture whatsoever. What you have presented is your opinion being passed off as 'gospel' and it is extremely dishonest.

[accepted77]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Jedi I would not have you ignorant....Lets go to the book and see what the book says.

Luk 20:28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Luk 20:29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
Luk 20:30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
Luk 20:31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
Luk 20:32 Last of all the woman died also.
Luk 20:33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

You err in saying that marriage is eternal, marriage is temporary, of this world only, its not eternal, that is dogma not scripture.
Whats bonded in heaven is our oaths, if you have not broken your oath, you are not guilty.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Here in Mathew Jesus deals with the issue of what breaks the covenant.

Note well his answer deals with the remarriage, as well as the cause, no adultery could have been be commited without remarriage, Jesus himself allows for remarriage if (porneia) sexual infidelity was found, remarriage was limited to the innocent spouse, the other is an oath breaker.

As I said earlier under the law that person would be dead.
Remember the law was Holy.
The principle holds they are now dead to this union their former spouse is free to remarry. Now if both are guilty then thats an entirely different matter.

To answer your other fallacy lets turn to Jesus discourse with the Samaritan woman.

Joh 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
Joh 4:8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
Joh 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
Joh 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
Joh 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
Joh 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
Joh 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
Joh 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

Note Jesus agrees with the woman that she now had no husband, she was living with a man but not married to him. But he said she had five husbands.

So she was not considered a married woman now, we can assume the five husbands died, but the context suggests not, rather that Jesus wanted to test her honesty.

She said I have no husband, now, if marriages are eternal, she lied. But Jesus agreed with her that she had no husband then.

Finally if only Holy matrimony is real before God, then why would Jesus be questioning a Samaritan woman about her marriage, samaritians were not known for worshipping one God but as idol worshippers, not keeping the law but denying their Jewish heritage and living mor like Gentiles, a Jewish woman would never openly flirt with a Jewish male, this woman was flirtatious and Jesus disciples were surprised to see nhi conversing with a single woman.
But Jesus saw her multiple 'failed'relationships and her living out of wedlock as a stumbling block and important to her.

God likewise see marriage important in this world to all of us. He holds us all to the same standards, God is no respectors of persons.

Like CEW said this "churchified notion" of marriage is not supported by scripture, its custom and tradition, none else.

Do you know the word love is not associated with marriage in the Bible untill Isaac and Rebecca?. That a man took a woman to bed and that was the marriage?.
That Hagar became married to Abraham in this way?.
That this was the way of the world and in many cultures still is today?.

Jedi, do some reading on a "Get".
Maybe ask Witchy Ooman for some references. Marriage is a complex cultural phenomena, it is a lot more concerned with "welfare" than love Cherish, honour, keep all constitute a contractural relationship, all provide grounds for dissolution of this contract.

Do some research do not seek to impose your view of marriage as Gods view. Marriage is a societal thing and a legal thing.

You are right on one front, we christians must confront this homosexual assualt on marriage as antiscriptural, antifamily, and antisocietal.
But we can't wish away marriages between non believers as not of God.

Remember we are children of promise and in Abraham shall all the families of the earth be blessed, all families.

Homosexuality unions cannot procreate naturally to build families, nueter genders do not make families this cancels the promise.

[neutral]

Re: Holy Matrimony

this topic just serves to highlight the ambiguities of religion,and christianity,it would appear that christianity,and the scriptures,are interpreted by differing individuals according to their own prejudices,or lack of them.
if christians cannot seem to agree on what is "morally" right,or acceptable, to their "god",
then they cannot claim to hold any monopoly on moral standards.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by neutral:
[qb] this topic just serves to highlight the ambiguities of religion,and christianity,it would appear that christianity,and the scriptures,are interpreted by differing individuals according to their own prejudices,or lack of them.
if christians cannot seem to agree on what is "morally" right,or acceptable, to their "god",
then they cannot claim to hold any monopoly on moral standards. [/qb]

I've been wondering since last night when someone was going to make the above statements. I do find it laughable that the opinions of one, two or ten can speak for Christianity in general. You will find opposing views in all beliefs or lack of, including atheism.

[accepted77]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Very well said Compry.

Its the ever present issue we all face as christians whenever we disagree in principle with another christian's position.
Especially where we face oposition from any or everyone who do not believe, whose views do not have to be congruent with another unbeliever.

But as christians we do have a responsibility to speak the truth as we see it and stand corrected if we can be shown to be wrong.

Compry we all see through a glass darkly so high is God thoughts above ours, and not everytime do we as christians humble ourselves to the spirit of truth, pride is our ever present companion.

We are also so willing to forgo truth for doctrines which we hold to from our special circles.

I do believe in the end that it is better for us to speak our truths, we may not convince anyone and we may be wrong in our interpretation, but in all this the gospel is preached and some trinklet of truth may be gleaned.

I learn something in here everytime I visit, even though I may at first disagree with the post.

[DC]

Re: Holy Matrimony

DC: Religion is not necessary to make a marriage acceptable to God.
Jedi: Why not just eliminate God all together then?

Actually Jedi, if you eliminate ‘religion’ you’ll get ‘relationship’. God is not a Christian. God existed before religion. The concept of marriage existed long before Christianity became an organized religion. The formality of how people got married has been changed throughout history. God is not so much concerned about rites and rituals of a religious order; He is more concerned with relationship. That is the true essence of our faith and marriage was designed to reflect that.

Even though Christians happen to believe in the divine origin of marriage and accept that as part of our beliefs, it does not make the ‘christianized’ way of creating a marriage more holy/acceptable/honorable than other unions that are not of our faith. How one enter that this union is completely irrelevant. You know, I would think God is even more elated with the fact that even the very ones who do not believe in Him are reflecting and mirroring the true purpose of what he had designed in the first place-long lasting committed relationships bound by love. As far as I see it, that is an acceptable marriage.

Accepted:
Very much aware of the changes made to the priesthood and of the spiritual significance in the Old and New Testament. Don't disagree at all. It was during the early days of the Catholic Church that the idea of being married before a Catholic priest and two witnesses was mandated(Council of Trent). I was making such a reference. Hope that is clearer for you

[Mutty]

Re: Holy Matrimony

I will have to agree with Neutral on this one. Yes, Christians have had and will have disagreements as we all do. What I find curious though it that these disagreements derive from a book that is supposed to be holy, true and perfect and the disagreements are often about core items within the faith. One would think that God, not wanting all this division and confusion amongst his people would have "inspired" a book with clear cut mandates and instructions on such matters. For example, what if you don't believe in the trinity or do? What happens if you were baptized in Jesus' name only as opposed to the father, son and holy ghost? What if you are baptized in the holy spirit and did not speak in tongues? What if you set aside your day of rest as Sunday as opposed to Saturday? What if you do not believe Jesus is one with God? This one happens to be about marriage - something important within the Christian faith.

[accepted77]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Mutty next you will agree with Rollin calf, [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] .
By the way where is he?
What strange company you keep these days. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Politics do make strange bedfellows, seems unbelief does too [img]/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]