Holy Matrimony

[accepted77]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by DC:
[qb]

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.

D.C
Technically Jesus is a christian, he is head of the church and we christians believe Jesus is God.

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 [/qb]

Point taken.

[Mutty]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] 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] [/qb]

I have no idea where Rollin Calf is, but I will tell you one thing which turns out to be a confession. When he and I had our debates on here, that man used to make so much sense and bring up such good points, it was hard to debate them. All I did was toss out the standard Christian responses which half the times were totally inadequate like when I tried to rationalize slavery in the Bible as if it can be. In fact, there were times when I was the only one who came to the plate to even dare touch
some of his objections as other Chrsitians probably had no sensible rebuttal.

[accepted77]

Re: Holy Matrimony

You are so right Mutty and I enjoyed and learned from those debates.

Rolling calf was definitely a challenging debater, but so versed was he in the scriptures that I knew he once tasted of the richness of a God-driven life.
What caused him to turn away I cannot fathom. Thats my same concern about you, my friend.
There is a great temptation for those who have tasted of the depths of spiritual experiences to fall to the "Dark Side" such it was with Lucifer and I believe JM1 attested to his past as a stumbling block, for knowledge once acquired is diffucult to surmount.

Mutty you well know demonic influences abound to push curious minds to seek out more and more knowledge.
The attraction is seductive and intoxicating. Unless this knowledge is balanced by Spiritual restraint we can so easily fall to its seductions.

You are in danger of becoming your nemesis, with the loss of JM1 and his couterbalancing wisdom I fear you have lost your balance that debates with RC provided to your sharp mind.

He served a purpose here he kept us on our toes.

I am praying for you my brother.

[accepted77]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Jedi, for your reading

http://www.frankcaw.com/divorce-print.html

and

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/brewer/divorce.htm

[Mutty]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] You are so right Mutty and I enjoyed and learned from those debates.

Rolling calf was definitely a challenging debater, but so versed was he in the scriptures that I knew he once tasted of the richness of a God-driven life.
What caused him to turn away I cannot fathom. Thats my same concern about you, my friend.
There is a great temptation for those who have tasted of the depths of spiritual experiences to fall to the "Dark Side" such it was with Lucifer and I believe JM1 attested to his past as a stumbling block, for knowledge once acquired is diffucult to surmount.

Mutty you well know demonic influences abound to push curious minds to seek out more and more knowledge.
The attraction is seductive and intoxicating. Unless this knowledge is balanced by Spiritual restraint we can so easily fall to its seductions.

You are in danger of becoming your nemesis, with the loss of JM1 and his couterbalancing wisdom I fear you have lost your balance that debates with RC provided to your sharp mind.

He served a purpose here he kept us on our toes.

I am praying for you my brother. [/qb]

Like I said Accepted, what Rollin brought up I knew all along. I was just lying to myself by holding serve to what I was brought up to believe. What did I do? Fought harder to hold on to what I knew was not truth. Call if denial. It is terribly embarrasing to proclaim the Gospel as being the only truth, that Jesus is the only way and that the Bible is correct from verse to verse, book to book and chapter to chapter only to find out it is not true and then have to admit this in the face of skeptics. Pride refuses us to let us admit that we could indeed be wrong.

[DC]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by accepted:
D.C
Technically Jesus is a christian, he is head of the church and we christians believe Jesus is God.

Okay. That's for another time [img]/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I agree with you and Compry on the 'disagreement' issue and if I might add soem thoughts:

According to the Word, the disciples had disagreements amongst themselves while they were with Jesus and he was the Word in the flesh! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The early Church folks had disagreements and the Bible was not even yet printed lol.

I think disagreements are healthy if they are done in a gracious manner! Do we have to agree on all issues to have unity? I don't think so. I think what's important are our motives and attitudes when it comes to dealing with conflict.

Honest questioning and rationally trying to understand God does not take away from the merits of faith or weakens trust. We still need faith however, to ward off irrational doubts. I think faith and reason are God given tools to totally comprehend God that’s why being challenged in our beliefs is not a bad thing.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] 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. [/qb]

(((Accepted))) I have both read your posts and checked with my Pastor on this issue. Thank you for taking the time to patiently explain and expand on your views. You have done this in the manner which the scripture prescribes, with patience and brotherly love for obviously you could see that I was clinging to the beliefs which I have held since a young woman, many of which I have now come to find are of the RC faith which was also taught in the Methodist Church which I attended as a young woman. Although I must submit that I stand corrected on the issue of marriage as honored by God this raises many questions in my mind. The issue of divorce is still unsettled as far as I am concerned for even though it is true that any covenant can be broken, the Word of God clearly sets forth the circumstances by which one once divorced can be remarried. I will return later with those questions particularly as it concerns the expectation of the Christian vs. the unbeliever.
It would seem to me that when it is all broken down marriage is a meaningless as buying a cow.
(later) [img]/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

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.

{Jedi: (((CEW))) it is not about experience it is not about Bible knowledge either, for up till now you have yet to explain to me why you stand on the ground which you stand which is where I would hold you to a higher standard than I hold anyone else being a man studying to be a minister. Of course you could counter that you did not feel obliged to patiently explain why you agreed with Fledgist, when I challenged you to prove why you disagree me. But see now that is where in my mind your Christian profession falls flat. See if you see where I am coming from.

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. [/qb]

If my arguments were fallacious till now you have yet to counter them in any constructive manner which would appear as though you did not know otherwise yourself only that in your opinion you disagreed which you as much as said.

[wonbyone]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by mountaingal:
[homosexual unions have been sanctioned by some Christian institutions, so they would qualify as holy matrimony, wouldn't they?[/i] [/QB]

No. I think the biblical term is abomination.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

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. [/qb]

If you wish to take my statements personally and become personally insulted then there is nothing that I can do to stop you from doing so. This being an open forum for discussion it is widely accepted that everyone has an opinion and will express it as they see fit. If I were to be offended by the many times you have cast your nasty remarks about Christians and Christianity in general I would stop coming to this forum. Yet I made no direct remarks to you or any other unbeliever, in regards to the reason why they married, which would be ludicrous as no one knows for sure why people marry whether in a civil or holy union. What is in a man's mind is in his mind however and no one but God knows that. As I said with the one it is bound in legality and the other is bound in love, God is love, in case you missed that serveral pages ago. As for dishonesty and being dishonorable, you have no ground to stand on being one of the most dishonorable and dishonest characters in this forum. With that said I have nothing further to say to you....GOODBYE.

[wonbyone]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by neutral:
[qb] the whole concept of marriage is flawed,and unnatural anyway,it goes against our basic human nature,which is to procreate,and multiply.
the whole precept is based on religious beliefs,that we should stick with one partner for life,which as we can see by the amount of divorces,is not only unworkable in the majority of cases,but impossible for some. [/qb]

How do you explain that the trend was quite a bit different just a few decades ago? How do you explain marriage between atheists? Do you really think that it is better for society to simply decay to the point of debauchery? Is an unstable life good for our children?

Funny though...as one who has had one partner for life...I have talked to friends that have had multiple sexual partners prior to marriage, have gotten divorced and had muliple partners once again. Guess what they say? I did not miss out on a thing and I should cherish my 30 years with my wife (that includes 26 years of marriage).

As time goes by the rate of divorce increases (last time I checked it was 50% overall in the US). Why is that? Is it because we are used to instant pleasures? No-fault instant divorce? Are we so spoiled that major or minor spats cause our marriages to collapse? Are we raising generations of children who are afraid of committment?

I have seen too many young people who have bounced around from partner to partner who are a psychological wreck. Many have suicidal tendancies because they cannot handle the "love the one you're with" concept.

What is it then that makes you say that marriage is unworkable and impossible?

[wonbyone]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[Second of all HOLY MATRIMONY is marriage but not all marriages are HOLY!

Nonsense! [/qb][/QUOTE]Prove it! [/QB][/QUOTE]

Jedi, with all due respect God does bless ALL unions of marriage between a man and a woman. The physical church did not exist in Old Testament times. Whether the business end of what people call the "church" agrees or not is immaterial. The true church is not bricks and mortar.

A note about pastors is that they are human and as such they may come to faulty conclusions...just as any of us. Dig further.

[wonbyone]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[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. [/QB]

Give it a break already! At least 4 or 5 of us agree with your assessment and yet we still lack honor!!!! That would then make you dishonest and irresponsible would it not 'cause we agree with you? You predjudice is shining brightly.

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by Fledgist:

Originally posted by Jedi l:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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.

If you wish to take my statements personally and become personally insulted then there is nothing that I can do to stop you from doing so. This being an open forum for discussion it is widely accepted that everyone has an opinion and will express it as they see fit. If I were to be offended by the many times you have cast your nasty remarks about Christians and Christianity in general I would stop coming to this forum. Yet I made no direct remarks to you or any other unbeliever, in regards to the reason why they married, which would be ludicrous as no one knows for sure why people marry whether in a civil or holy union. What is in a man's mind is in his mind however and no one but God knows that. As I said with the one it is bound in legality and the other is bound in love, God is love, in case you missed that serveral pages ago. As for dishonesty and being dishonorable, you have no ground to stand on being one of the most dishonorable and dishonest characters in this forum. With that said I have nothing further to say to you....GOODBYE.

Without knowing the boardite personally, I have no idea how you can pass a judgement that he is both "dishonorable and dishonest". This is well out of line, but I am sure if left alone, you will find a way to defend the indefensible. When you no longer know how to use the "Backspace" key, it is time to move on.

Closing...