bible-truths.com/forums
=> Off Topic Discussions => Topic started by: lurquer on March 08, 2015, 01:48:36 AM
-
Not to stir up the hornets nest again, but I saw this just recently and thought I should share...
Coming Soon to a (christian) Theater Near You...
An all-new(ly) sanctioned marriage!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972542/They-look-like-new-boy-band-s-world-s-THREE-WAY-sex-marriage-Gay-Thai-men-tie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html
Hey, don't you judge. It's the ceremony and the vow that matter! ;D
-
Not to stir up the hornets nest again, but I saw this just recently and thought I should share...
Coming Soon to a (christian) Theater Near You...
An all-new(ly) sanctioned marriage!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972542/They-look-like-new-boy-band-s-world-s-THREE-WAY-sex-marriage-Gay-Thai-men-tie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html
Hey, don't you judge. It's the ceremony and the vow that matter! ;D
A ceremony and vow between one man and one woman (Gen 5:2, Matthew 9:4)!
On topic, I did hear about this and honestly just shrugged my shoulders and said, "Meh." God's doing as He has planned with this world and its not my place to tell Him otherwise.
God bless,
Alex
-
Soooooooooooooooooooooo sweet it makes me want cry :'(
It's a sad state for the world we live in but it is the world.
Good thing God will sort it all out
Rhys
-
A ceremony and vow between one man and one woman (Gen 5:2, Matthew 9:4)!
Hey, YOU tell that to the State who issues the permits that make the marriages "legal"! I'm sure they'll appreciate your Bible-based opinion and adjust their laws accordingly...
On topic, I did hear about this and honestly just shrugged my shoulders and said, "Meh." God's doing as He has planned with this world and its not my place to tell Him otherwise.
God bless,
Alex
Well, I just have a hard time shrugging off the wickedness that assaults me almost daily. It's a stench in my nostrils the same as it is with God. You're right, God ordained the evil, but if I have the attitude you have I'd be a little too close for comfort to those who "call evil good and good evil". As Light and Salt, we should absolutely make it known to anyone who's watching (and especially our children!) that it is wickedness, and it is intolerable. God will punish them for their gross sins.
I have five children, and I have a problem with the societal urge to just "Meh" the darkness of this world. I've tried to steer them in the opposite direction so they don't become adults--and then parents--who believe 3-male marriages are "normal". I suggest if you have children, you should do the same.
Rhys-- It's sad indeed, but I didn't get the urge to cry. I had an altogether different urge...matter of fact I couldn't get past the first few pics without throwing up in my mouth a little bit. :P
-
1Co 6:9-11 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit the kingdom of God. And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.
How did "some of them" get to be not "unrighteous persons not to inherit the kingdom of God? How do "some of us" get to not be that way, but be the other way? How will the rest of "us" get to not be those ways and get to be the other way?
Is the salvation of all accomplished in some way other than the way "some of them" received theirs? Are those who never were "unrighteous persons" in these ways saved already?
I haven't thought about much else of a spiritual nature these last 6 or so years since hope was given to this guy who was made subject to vanity.
-
Great post Dave! That's the scripture came to mind when reading above!
Does God punish those who do iniquity? Or does he teach them to do right through judgement. Isaiah 26:9 for when thy judgements are in the earth the inhabitants of the world ( including those three gay guys who got married ) will learn righteousness!!
-
I certainly agree with what you said, Dave. But if you were trying to make a further point, I guess I just didn't see it.
I guess my point was that (philosophical) ideas have (physical) consequences. Failure to address sin and error when it is well known leads to the cancer growing--eventually towards a societal fatal outcome. There are national, collective consequences also that those who were innocent of the sin must bear...when the "land is defiled, and the land itself vomiteth out its inhabitants". To fail to decry wickedness, because you once engaged in it is a cop-out at best.
Leviticus 18 (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.
-
I'm not denying that the ones Paul referred to once 'walked in iniquity'. Nor am I suggesting that he is encouraging them to 'cop-out'. I see a picture of three guys who will one day be in the spiritual image of Sons. It would be better for them had they not done what they did. But since they did, what has to happen before they too are "washed...sanctified...justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God."
Scripture says a lot more about sin than "don't do it".
-
Here is a question that might has to do with the main intention of this thread.
If I could only marriage legally in Gods eyes through the government paper...
Why does my spiritual well being and integrity has to depend on my availability for the carnal government and their papers?
I agree that A ceremony and vow between one man and one woman makes a marriage (Gen 5:2, Matthew 9:4)
Paul says, Let your Yes be Yes and Your No be No. (Yes, I have read Rays paper on marriage)
We ought to obey God before man.
I am okay with following all rational and respectful laws that governments make (traffic laws, respecting the things of others and things like that). I am just very suspicious about how this signing of random "official" papers can be able to mess up with my spiritual life. I don't want to be a fornicator.
You know, the easiest thing to do is to stop thinking about it, pay 35 dollars and sign the "official" paper, and I would also save my self all this time of posting and defending my point.
But sometimes looking for the truth becomes not the 'easiest way to go'. And I could make a big list of hypothetical situations where the signing of this "official" paper would be impossible to sign, inconvenient to sign, suspicious to sign, and meaningless to sign.
I somewhat understand how societies work and how civilizations need this kind of organization, etc, etc. I am not trying to change the worlds rules, I am just concerned about my own personal way to deal with this matters as a truth seeker.
sincerely
Moises
ps. I am open for rational discussion and reconsider my personal suspicious on the matter.
If you don't agree with me,
please be nice.
-
Hi Friend Moises,
Not sure that I have anything to add that has not been mentioned.
In my humble view, God looks upon the heart of those who wish to spend their lives together in full commitment to one another. That is what is important. 8)
Complying with the conventions of the culture in which one lives can be important so that the young couple and their children will have a peaceful, respected existence among the other members of that culture.
However, as far as God's judgment is concerned, it is the intent of the heart that determines guilt or innocence, approval or disapproval.
If a man and a woman meet on a deserted island, not having any established formal culture and decide to make a family together for the rest of their lives that is enough. Signing their names and writing a promise on a parchment or on the trunk of a tree on that island doesn't change the validity of their commitment.
If then a ship arrives to rescue them it would be helpful to tell all aboard the ship that they are a family and have a lifelong commitment. To my mind there would be no necessity to formalize their relationship by having a pastor of a religious denomination pronounce them married in the eyes of God. The act of living together in a committed loving relationship has already established their situation. What can be added?
Just my view, Indianabob
-
Moises, To add to what Bob said, there are 'provisions' in law (at least where I live) for what is called 'common-law' marriage that recognize it after a certain period of 'living together' has occurred. The time required may vary, but I think they are all designed to recognize the 'commitment'.
I'm making no comment about these arrangements, just saying that they exist and are 'formally' and legally recognized, and have been for a long time.
-
Thank you Dave and Indianabob,
I appreciate your comments. Above all, I think God is loving, merciful and full of compassion. This is the God that Jesus revealed. If He doesn't hold our sins against us, then why do we think that sinners will be punished for them? Wouldn't it be more of a correction (learning righteousness) than a payment (punishment) for a sin that God says He doesn't hold against us? I think often about the fact that I am no more deserving of the gift of faith than the next person. It is ALL God's work. He hardens who He will, He has mercy on who He will. The race is NOT to the swift, but it's all up to God. If that doesn't serve to keep us humble, I don't know what would.
-
Here is a question that might has to do with the main intention of this thread.
If I could only marriage legally in Gods eyes through the government paper...
Why does my spiritual well being and integrity has to depend on my availability for the carnal government and their papers?
I agree that A ceremony and vow between one man and one woman makes a marriage (Gen 5:2, Matthew 9:4)
Paul says, Let your Yes be Yes and Your No be No. (Yes, I have read Rays paper on marriage)
We ought to obey God before man.
I am okay with following all rational and respectful laws that governments make (traffic laws, respecting the things of others and things like that). I am just very suspicious about how this signing of random "official" papers can be able to mess up with my spiritual life. I don't want to be a fornicator.
You know, the easiest thing to do is to stop thinking about it, pay 35 dollars and sign the "official" paper, and I would also save my self all this time of posting and defending my point.
But sometimes looking for the truth becomes not the 'easiest way to go'. And I could make a big list of hypothetical situations where the signing of this "official" paper would be impossible to sign, inconvenient to sign, suspicious to sign, and meaningless to sign.
I somewhat understand how societies work and how civilizations need this kind of organization, etc, etc. I am not trying to change the worlds rules, I am just concerned about my own personal way to deal with this matters as a truth seeker.
sincerely
Moises
ps. I am open for rational discussion and reconsider my personal suspicious on the matter.
If you don't agree with me,
please be nice.
Hi Moises,
Our human reasoning on this matter is not what counts, we need to try to go by what is God's will and Scriptural. We know that marriage is spoken of many times and Paul says "it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Do we really think Paul is saying that to "marry" only needs to be some kind of 'private' commitment, no matter how sincere? The marriage ceremony is about the PUBLIC commitment before witnesses, family and friends, that creates a binding contact/covenant of a marriage. Those who attend bare witness to the couples words/vow of commitment, the 'witnesses' are always required for it to be legal. This creates the contract/covenant and God recognizes that.
Mal 2:14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant.
The 'piece of paper' is only to establish a legal record of the marriage commitment/contract, so the couple can then partake of the benefits; tax benefits, med. insurance benefits through a spouse's employment, receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. Actually the church used to keep many public records of marriage, births, death dates, and is considered an official record, that's why Christians used it and in past centuries, so there would be a record. But you don't have to involve church or minister at all, there are many officials that can legally marry a couple. Maybe in the near future you won't even need a piece of paper, maybe it will all be done through computer programs or fingerprints or something.
Also this earthly marriage is a shadow of the spiritual marriage of Christ to His bride/church. It symbolizes that perfect union when Christ becomes one with His bride and that will have many witnesses as well.
Rev 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
Think about how the marriage of the elect to Christ at resurrection will actually produce many offspring, the elect will be "saviors" "priests" and Christ, through the elect will bring salvation to the world. Eventually the rest of mankind will be born into the kingdom too.
Oba 1:21 Then saviors shall come to Mount Zion To judge the mountains of Esau, And the kingdom shall be the LORD's.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them...
That's what makes the same gender/sex marriage a farce, IMO... marriage symbolizes Christ and the elect united to produce children, salvation of the rest of humanity, that is impossible for a marriage of the same gender. We have to stop trying to understand things through worldly eyes, there is no truth there.
1Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people to be His very own and to proclaim the wonderful deeds of the One who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
v. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God. Once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
v. 11 Dear friends, I urge you as aliens and exiles to keep on abstaining from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul.
v. 12 Continue to live such upright lives among the gentiles that, when they slander you as practicers of evil, they may see your good actions and glorify God when He visits them.
v. 13 For the Lord's sake submit yourselves to every human authority: whether to the king as supreme,
v. 14 or to governors who are sent by Him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.
v. 15 For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Hi Kat,
Thanks for expounding the deeper truths about the purpose of marriage.
Much appreciated. Indiana bob
-
I would also add to this that if the state requires you to have a piece of paper to recognize your marriage before man and subsequently before God then do it. There is no power than that of God.
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
1 Peter 2
12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
Of course though, do not obey those who would provoke you to do things which you know to be wrong in the eye's of God even if they are those in power for God is the one we answer to.
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Lastly, we know how important witnesses are , after all, we cannot establish doctrine without at least two witnesses and the more the better! So then there need be witnesses too for marriage!
God bless,
Alex
-
I'm not trying to change the subject, but as I was reading I thought, "unconditional love". And then I think, well, is God's love truly unconditional? It's conditioned on who He is, not who we are. But do we love unconditionally? Or is that a word and a concept not in the Bible? We love with patience, kindness, we don't keep count of wrongs, and love never fails. But does that convey unconditional? Or are we, am I, using the wrong word? What do you all think?
-
Octoberose,
Yes God's love is unconditional.
God's favor is a different and conditional thing.
Since we have learned that God will grant salvation to ALL we have a special understanding not available to the majority. For them to not receive God's favor or blessing or approval is a sign of hate rather than unconditional love.
So as you say we humans are unable to love unconditionally other than with the indwelling of God's spirit and that takes a lifetime of practice to even come close. It is hard to love fully when we are being hurt by those we are trying to love. It is very difficult to yield the self to the needs of others.
God on the other hand can love even His enemies, which we once were.
So I do believe that God loves unconditionally even when He must admonish, correct or punish. It is done for our good, to make us better and to teach us that we need God in our lives and that without God in our lives all is vanity and subject to be burned up.
Please offer your critique of my comments.
Thanks, Indianabob
-
Thanks you all who responded to my post, and took the time and the effort.
Kat, I just read your response right now, this you wrote seem to be the key of the matter:
"The marriage ceremony is about the PUBLIC commitment before witnesses, family and friends, that creates a binding contract/covenant of a marriage. Those who attend bare witness to the couples words/vow of commitment, the 'witnesses' are always required for it to be legal. This creates the contract/covenant and God recognizes that.
Mal 2:14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant.''
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't said it could be a private agreement:
I agree that A ceremony and vow between one man and one woman makes a marriage (Gen 5:2, Matthew 9:4)
Paul says, Let your Yes be Yes and Your No be No.
A ceremony involves witnesses.
PERSONALLY I don't consider my self a member of mostly any human institution (including all churches). I believe in obeying those who are in authority over me on a daily base, and of course, I believe God always must be first.
Does God requires ''the state'' to recognize my marriage before Him? What if I would be alien in a far away forange land? What if I was born in a society without record keeping? What if God is more concerned about 'the PUBLIC commitment before witnesses', than ''signing random papers storage in boring old buildings''. Sometimes is hard to think a little outside the box when dealing with national traditions... How do we know that this ''traditions of men are not an idol of our heart?''
If most people around you don't recognize paper bills as money, then the 'paper money' lose its power and value; they become just green peaces of paper than nobody really cares about. Same thing happens with this 'random peaces of ''official papers''. At the end, you give them the value which they will have to you. So then, how different would it be if I print my own ''peace of paper'' and give it as much value as I would give to the other state's one. Why would God hold more important ''their paper'' than 'my paper'. I don't think the verse of subjecting your self to the higher powers has to fit on this context. If so, many brothers an sisters living in dangerous territories around the world would be in spiritual troubles.
What if a make a 'PUBLIC commitment before witnesses' (ceremony and wedding and mutual agreement --and even sign my own paper if I will) and then I try very hard to live a marriage in all honesty and piety. Then God will judge me as He better fit...
(in an hypothetical scenario; I doubt He would come up with: but you was a fornicator all your life because you didn't sign the state's official paper)
As to establishing records, and obtaining benefits, I think that the time and circumstances in which I will find my self will dictate my next move. If it ever happens.
sincerely
Moises
-
Moises, I think it's more of a thing as Paul said "customs to whom customs" (Rom 13:7). We follow the custom, that's just the accepted practice for society of the culture and time period in which we live. Before writing was commonplace they certainly did not have a piece of paper as proof of marriage, so they had their own way of recognizing a marriage. Different cultures had different ways they acknowledging a married couple.
I think it's actually going through those motions of satisfying whatever requirements/traditions there is, to be seen and accepted as legally married by the community you are living in. When you consider this world, that does not know God, then you really are just satisfying traditions, but I guess it's done in an honorable way as much as can be.
But I do believe God, who is actually the great designer of what civilization has been down through the ages and is now, recognizes the marriage rituals. Just my thoughts.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
I'm not trying to change the subject, but as I was reading I thought, "unconditional love". And then I think, well, is God's love truly unconditional? It's conditioned on who He is, not who we are. But do we love unconditionally? Or is that a word and a concept not in the Bible? We love with patience, kindness, we don't keep count of wrongs, and love never fails. But does that convey unconditional? Or are we, am I, using the wrong word? What do you all think?
Hi Rose,
I just wanted to bring to remembrance that our English uses one word to describe, what is essentially two different words in the greek , the concept of love.
Greek separates the love God has for the world, those who sin as a way of life, the enemies of Christ, and the love that God has for those in Christ.
Agape verses Phileo. I think a lot of people lose sight of this when they talk about love, loving your enemies, etc...
As ray said, you're not going to hug the terrorist who cut peoples head's off and invite him over for tea just because God tells us to love our enemies. No, you love them, in the sense that you don't return evil for evil and you understand that one day they will be conformed into the image of Christ. You love them in the sense that you understand that God has concluded us all in unbelief that He might have mercy upon us all. You love him in the sense that you understand it's not of him that wills nor of him that does but of God who shows mercy. You pray for them if they are persecuting you, you heap coals of fire upon their heads, etc... but you don't PHILEO them in anyway and neither does God. You don't condone their actions or tell them what they are doing is okay. You don't deny the God who's purchased you with a price! God hates those who sin as a way of life. While God's hate may very well be different then our own unjustifiable hatred, He still nonetheless expresses His deep dislike and abhorrence at sinners. Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Ray's article on why does God love you, and his study on the different kinds of love in the bible, are very eye opening.
God bless,
Alex
-
Moises, I think it's more of a thing as Paul said "customs to whom customs" (Rom 13:7). We follow the custom, that's just the accepted practice for society of the culture and time period in which we live. ...
I think it's actually going through those motions of satisfying whatever requirements/traditions there is, to be seen and accepted as legally married by the community you are living in...
But I do believe God, who is actually the great designer of what civilization has been down through the ages and is now, recognizes the marriage rituals.
Even the "gay" ones?
-
Michael my comments were specifically to Moises concerning marriage between a man and a woman... I have clearly said I do not agree with a same sex union. In scripture Paul makes it clear how he feels about this.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
v. 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
v. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
v. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
So I think we can conclude what Paul calls "vile" "dishonor their bodies" "against nature" "shameful" "error" is sinful. What does Scripture say about how God feels about sinners.
John 9:31 Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.
Psa 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, The Lord will not hear.
Pro 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Kat,
I know you don't agree with a "same sex union". I wasn't challenging that. Of course, I would argue such a "union" is a fantasy anyway and simply doesn't exist. Homosexual behavior exists, and state-sanctioned "marriage" of same-gendered persons exists vis-a-vis the so-called "license"...Because, well, that's the law.
Doesn't make it right, or true. But that's my point, and maybe others' as well.
You said marriage is 'legal' or 'right' or 'accepted' in the eyes of God so long as "we follow the custom, that's just the accepted practice for society of the culture and time period in which we live." So I merely was pointing out that you can't really have it both ways,can you?
If you define marriage as you have (see my bolded citations of yours in my prior post), then you have to have it the STATE'S WAY. Because THEY define the matter--the "accepted practice", the "requirements", the "traditions", as they've legally defined. And they've said same-sex "unions" are valid.
But if you say they are not valid, then how do you not contradict yourself?
And why does what's accepted by the masses--the customs/traditions of (evil) men--have ANY relevance to followers of Christ? You said we "follow the custom"... WHY?? I couldn't disagree more. "Learn NOT the way of the heathen."
-
You said marriage is 'legal' or 'right' or 'accepted' in the eyes of God so long as "we follow the custom, that's just the accepted practice for society of the culture and time period in which we live." So I merely was pointing out that you can't really have it both ways,can you?
Well since we are still physically in this world we do have to live according to the laws of the land - society and there is nothing wrong with partaking of the benefits the gov offers, when we have paid taxes. Peter teaches that we are to submit ourselves to ordinances of man.
1Peter 2:12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.
v. 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme,
v. 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
But as we are also to obey God, first and foremost, and Scripture certainly does ordain and promote marriage, then we should get married. Now how are we to go about the marrying of 2 people, when the Bible only gives us the rudimentary bases for it, "leave father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"? Well we follow the accepted custom for where we live. Is this a contradiction, by saying it needs to be both ways... you need to marry according to Scripture and society? I don't think so.
Now when you insert same sex marriage into the equation, that is a whole other aspect and I have shown, in Scripture, it's not an acceptable practice in the eyes of God, according to Paul. So there you have it, unless you are in accordance with what the Scripture teaches is God's will, as same sex marriage is not, so God certainly does not honor it.
State/gov can validate whatever they choose... and there is much in this world that believers do not partake in. That is an absolutely key element in believers walk, to know how to "live peaceably" (Rom 12:18) in this world and not be conformed to this world.
Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
1Peter 4:1 Therefore, since the Messiah suffered in a mortal body, you, too, must arm yourselves with the same determination, because the person who has suffered in a mortal body has stopped sinning,
v. 2 so that he can live the rest of his mortal life guided, not by human desires, but by the will of God.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
State/gov can validate whatever they choose... and there is much in this world that believers do not partake in. That is an absolutely key element in believers walk, to know how to "live peaceably" (Rom 12:18) in this world and not be conformed to this world.
Exactly. What the state passes for "law" is relevant to believers only in as much as it agrees with God's laws. All else is man's law, useful only to corral the masses of humanity which know not God. None of us here should NEED the law of the state to know what is the right thing to do. It's not for us. Much of it actually contradicts our (God's) law. That much is irrelevant for us.
You've agreed with this in that you distinguish those state laws which are in enmity with God's laws by saying (as Peter did), "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) Therefore when Peter later says, "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake", we have to be careful in interpreting that lest we make Peter contradict himself. Perhaps the bolded phrase may help some to understand what he was saying.
What therefore the state defines as "lawful" (such as homosexual unions) is nevertheless NOT lawful in our eyes. We disregard it. We "conduct ourselves honorably," yet without "honoring" the state. We don't submit to their traditions or ordinances or customs UNLESS they are from God's Law through His Word. God's Word--His definitions are the primary thing and they always trump man's. What marriage then is, or isn't, has nothing to do with "local customs" or "legally accepted practices", "requirements", or "traditions". It is what God says it is or it is nothing at all.
The reality is, as you said, "we are still physically in this world and do have to live according to the laws of the land"--but NOT because we necessarily agree with them. We follow the righteous laws because they were already written in our hearts. The others we follow to avoid unrighteous persecution from the hands of the enforcers. None of us desire to be kidnapped, caged, beaten or killed, and that is why we "pay our taxes". At least that's the reason I pay my taxes. And the only reason.
-
Hi Neo, Your Quote ; None of us here should NEED the law of the state to know what is the right thing to do. End of Quote. Yes Neo I agree and we could carry that over to wether or not we should go to a gay couples wedding!
:D R.P.J
-
"What marriage then is, or isn't, has nothing to do with "local customs" or "legally accepted practices", "requirements", or "traditions". It is what God says it is or it is nothing at all."
Neo, what Ray taught was that the WORD translated marry/married/a marriage in the bible referred to the act of GETTING MARRIED for people who were NOT YET MARRIED. That's the way we're born. There are other words which refer to the state of BEING married, that is being husband and wife.
So I'll ask you again. What do you tell a young couple (or older couple) who are not yet married if they want be get married according to the way God says, so that it might be not nothing at all.
-
Neo, what Ray taught was that the WORD translated marry/married/a marriage in the bible referred to the act of GETTING MARRIED for people who were NOT YET MARRIED. That's the way we're born. There are other words which refer to the state of BEING married, that is being husband and wife.
Dave, forgive me; I know you are a smart man and don't want to debate you but I just don't get your point. I understand the difference between the act of "becoming" and the state of "being"... That the one leads to the other...cause and effect. People are certainly not born married; they GET married and then they ARE married. We agree.
I think I know what Ray taught on the subject (I've listened to it and studied it). "Marriage" is a "union". A very specific union described by God. I think we all here agree with that. HOW the union occurs is the point of contention. But whatever the process of "becoming married", the ultimate STATE of the union is the kernel. What have the couple become? And why? And did the State make this happen? Does the State define reality? I say they don't.
As I've said before, "marry" is just a word. It actually means "to unite". Then once united, you are United! It's not a holy word either. You can be "married to a harlot", says Paul... But, she is not your wife! Deep things, brother.
-
Neo, what Ray taught was that the WORD translated marry/married/a marriage in the bible referred to the act of GETTING MARRIED for people who were NOT YET MARRIED. That's the way we're born. There are other words which refer to the state of BEING married, that is being husband and wife.
Dave, forgive me; I know you are a smart man and don't want to debate you but I just don't get your point. I understand the difference between the act of "becoming" and the state of "being"... That the one leads to the other...cause and effect. People are certainly not born married; they GET married and then they ARE married. We agree.
I think I know what Ray taught on the subject (I've listened to it and studied it). "Marriage" is a "union". A very specific union described by God. I think we all here agree with that. HOW the union occurs is the point of contention. But whatever the process of "becoming married", the ultimate STATE of the union is the kernel. What have the couple become? And why? And did the State make this happen? Does the State define reality? I say they don't.
As I've said before, "marry" is just a word. It actually means "to unite". Then once united, you are United! It's not a holy word either. You can be "married to a harlot", says Paul... But, she is not your wife! Deep things, brother.
Where are the two Scriptures where Paul teaches that, "You can be married to a harlot, but she is not your wife"?
I know a Scripture that says you can have sex with a prostitute and be one body, but nothing that says that action makes her a wife.
Jesus told the woman at the well that she had, had five husbands, and that the man she was living with was not her husband. Sex and living together does not a marriage make.
There is massive ignorance of the Scriptures. The only way to understand the Scriptures is through the Holy Spirit and only to those of a humble heart who tremble at the Word of God, as opposed to their own false understanding.
-
Neo, what Ray taught was that the WORD translated marry/married/a marriage in the bible referred to the act of GETTING MARRIED for people who were NOT YET MARRIED. That's the way we're born. There are other words which refer to the state of BEING married, that is being husband and wife.
Dave, forgive me; I know you are a smart man and don't want to debate you but I just don't get your point. I understand the difference between the act of "becoming" and the state of "being"... That the one leads to the other...cause and effect. People are certainly not born married; they GET married and then they ARE married. We agree.
I think I know what Ray taught on the subject (I've listened to it and studied it). "Marriage" is a "union". A very specific union described by God. I think we all here agree with that. HOW the union occurs is the point of contention. But whatever the process of "becoming married", the ultimate STATE of the union is the kernel. What have the couple become? And why? And did the State make this happen? Does the State define reality? I say they don't.
As I've said before, "marry" is just a word. It actually means "to unite". Then once united, you are United! It's not a holy word either. You can be "married to a harlot", says Paul... But, she is not your wife! Deep things, brother.
Where are the two Scriptures where Paul teaches that, "You can be married to a harlot, but she is not your wife"?
I know a Scripture that says you can have sex with a prostitute and be one body, but nothing that says that action makes her a wife.
Jesus told the woman at the well that she had, had five husbands, and that the man she was living with was not her husband. Sex and living together does not a marriage make.
There is massive ignorance of the Scriptures. The only way to understand the Scriptures is through the Holy Spirit and only to those of a humble heart who tremble at the Word of God, as opposed to their own false understanding.
I couldn't find that verse either that Neo was referencing but I did find the one about sex joins you to her body.
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Paul makes clear only the marriage bed is undefiled. If sex a marriage makes, then paul made a big mistake not to include the "elopement" bed into the "undefiled" catagory as well. Seeing as an eloped couple prior to marriage can be considered husband and wife. Nevertheless, paul makes no mention of the elopement bed. It is pretty clear to me that lawful marriage only occurs through the exchanging of vows before witnesses to move a couple out of the "elopement" bed and into the "marriage" bed. Once a couple is married as defined by God (not gay marriage) then sex becomes lawful.
God bless,
Alex
-
This is the passage I believe Michael was referring to, verse 16 in particular.
1Co 6:15 You know that your bodies belong to the Messiah, don't you? Should I take what belongs to the Messiah and unite them with a prostitute? Certainly not!
v. 16 You know that the person who unites himself with a prostitute becomes one body with her, don't you? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
v. 17 But the person who unites himself with the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
v. 18 Keep on running away from sexual immorality. Any other sin that a person commits is outside his body, but the person who sins sexually sins against his own body.
v. 19 You know that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God, don't you? You do not belong to yourselves,
v. 20 because you were bought for a price. Therefore, glorify God with your bodies.
Paul is not saying that to have sex with a harlot is the same as to marry her. No, he is appealing to the sense of a believer as to how precious the gift of the Holy Spirit indwelling is and to have casual sex with somebody outside of marriage, which a harlot clearly is, was indecent and a detestable "sin" against the Spirit indwelling. Paul is warning about "sin" and here it is sexual immorality, certainly not comparing the sex act to marriage.
The bodies of believers are the members of Christ, we are His temple and should never be so caught up in lust as to join/have sex with anybody other than a lawful husband/wife. Paul says to "flee sexual immorality" because a believers that does not control (by the Spirit indwelling) these lusts will not be in the first resurrection.
1Cor 6:9 You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
v. 10 thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Neo, I was much less trying to make a point than asking a question. I shouldn't be surprised that it wasn't answered.
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.
Here's what I think made Jesus a prophet. She had no husband. If I am gathering your point in this and the other thread, you think she had no husband either because 1. She hadn't had sex with this man, or 2. He was at least "One Husband" past her limit on how many she could have and still have him be a "husband".
I think Jesus is saying to her, "You have said the truth. You have had five husbands (He called all five of these men 'husbands') but the one you have NOW is a husband also...only he isn't YOUR husband.
-
The way I see it; the male, and the female are married as long as they are faithful.
Being unfaithful produces whores, adulterers, prostitutes, whoremongers, and harlots, in the physical or the Spiritual sense.
Scripture that came to mind, studying how God looks at things can go in many directions as it concerned God and the Jews, Israel, Judah, and also Christ and the NEW TESTAMENT Church, and Babylon.
Hosea 1:2-The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath commited great whoredoms, departing from the LORD.
Joel
-
John and Alex, I have no desire to rehash what was well-covered in the Marriage Vow thread. Anyway, it was locked, as you know; probably for good reason. But for reference, please go back and re-read all that is in there (I did--it still makes sense). I honestly don't think either of you have any real interest in hearing an opinion contrary to your own so I won't indulge it. My time is just as precious as yours. Nevertheless, I'll bet my answer to your questions is found there. ;)
Dave, I addressed the 'Woman at the Well' in that thread, and I AGREE with you! Go back and read it!
Further, you said:
Neo, I was much less trying to make a point than asking a question. I shouldn't be surprised that it wasn't answered... "What do you tell a young couple (or older couple) who are not yet married if they want be get married according to the way God says, so that it might be not nothing at all."
My answer is as before: 1 Corinthians 7. It's actually Paul's answer.
-
John and Alex, I have no desire to rehash what was well-covered in the Marriage Vow thread. Anyway, it was locked, as you know; probably for good reason. But for reference, please go back and re-read all that is in there (I did--it still makes sense). I honestly don't think either of you have any real interest in hearing an opinion contrary to your own so I won't indulge it. My time is just as precious as yours. Nevertheless, I'll bet my answer to your questions is found there. ;)
Dave, I addressed the 'Woman at the Well' in that thread, and I AGREE with you! Go back and read it!
Further, you said:
Neo, I was much less trying to make a point than asking a question. I shouldn't be surprised that it wasn't answered... "What do you tell a young couple (or older couple) who are not yet married if they want be get married according to the way God says, so that it might be not nothing at all."
My answer is as before: 1 Corinthians 7. It's actually Paul's answer.
I remember your argument Neo.
Paul's words remove all doubt as to what makes a marriage and it isn't the act of sex. The act of sex between an eloped couple is not the marriage bed, its the ELOPED bed. Paul makes no mention of it being undefiled but rather only the marriage bed is undefiled. Hence there is a step between elopement, and marital sex, which moves a couple from eloped to marriage and that allows for an undefiled marriage bed.
I really don't see any ambiguity in this as you claim and I think the scriptures are quiet clear on what marriage is. People do not become married through the act of sexual intercourse.
-
I waded back through that thread until I found your post on the woman at the well. I don't agree with it. You said her 'five husbands' were immoral unions (or words to that effect). Scripture does not say they were. One can have five husbands in a row and all five of them be legitimate, moral, biblically lawful marriages. Reference the questions posed by the Pharisees to try and trap the Lord. Reference real life. You say this (in part) because she said later that Jesus had told her everything she had done. Is getting married something one does not DO?
Admit it. You just made that up because it fits your theory.
You asked us to replace 'apples' with husbands. Ok. Here goes.
Joh 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, get thy apple, and come hither.
Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no apple. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no apple:
Joh 4:18 For thou hast had five apples; and it which thou now hast is not thy apple: in that saidst thou truly.
Joh 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
The woman said she had no apple. Jesus said she spoke the truth. Then he told her as a prophet that she had had five apples, but it which she now had is not her apple. He didn't say it was not an apple. He said it was not HER apple.
It may be possible to read that and conclude that the man she 'had' was single and the two were unmarried. But I think it was the wisdom of Christ which said the one (husband) she now had was not HER HUSBAND. In other words, she "had" an apple--but it wasn't HER apple. The apple belonged to someone else. The sixth man was a husband (assuming "the one..." is a modifier for 'husbands'), but not HER husband. He was the husband of another woman.
This kind of stuff actually happens. And it is neither necessary nor helpful to to assume what is not in Scripture in this account. I used to teach my sunday school boys along the lines of what you are saying here. I felt it was important to let them know how important the sexual act was. But it was not needed or helpful to lay on them the burden of being 'eternally' ""married"" to someone just because they had fallen to temptation. There is already 'sin' by that name--adultery and fornication. Both of those relate to MARRIAGE, ultimately. But they are NOT marriage...one is an act against marriage, and the other an act against one's own body.
I find plenty of fault with other assumptions you make in that thread (and this one, to a lesser degree) in defense of sexual union=being wed, but I bowed out of that one because, as a moderator, it became impossible to moderate and I, frankly, had a life to live.
In the olden days, if somebody had started a thread clearly with the intent to 'teach' something contrary to what Ray taught, I/we would have had no compunction about 'nipping it in the bud'. I hope you can appreciate the leeway we've given here, and that we can both hope that we will not live to regret it.
-
Dave, I said I agreed with you on your interpretation of the Woman at the Well.. that the "husband" she had was not HER husband (another's!). That was my point in bringing it up. Yes, I interpreted the other "5 husbands" to mean illicit husbands from the context of the reading, but no, I can't prove that. I don't see, however, how that changes my point (and yours) that the "husband she had" was actually another's. She was an adulteress. I guess you're trying to say that Jesus was not actually calling her (illicit husband) HER HUSBAND, but rather, A HUSBAND. I'm fine with that. But I showed many other scriptures which do use the word "husband" or "wife" of one who is NOT lawfully married to that person (just in a 'sexual union')--matter of fact the parallel scripture of this account is John the Baptist's decrying of King Herod's "wife" (not his--actually his brother's). I showed that as well.
I used to teach my sunday school boys along the lines of what you are saying here. I felt it was important to let them know how important the sexual act was. But it was not needed or helpful to lay on them the burden of being 'eternally' ""married"" to someone just because they had fallen to temptation.
Well, Dave that's where I may have done differently, if I was apt to teach. Paul (and nature itself) teaches that a sexual union with another-- is either a sin against your own body, the consequences of which follow you for life--else it's a "marriage" wherein you've become "one flesh" (until death). We absolutely should teach others that truth and not be as the heathen with their casual, inconsequential attitudes towards sex.
That being said, I did not start the Marriage Vow thread to teach anything, as I explicitly stated (unless you imply I'm lying). I was, and am, still seeking clarity on all of this. I DO NOT think Ray "completed his thoughts" with his (short) study of marriage and said so up front. I asked the very same questions to the forum as I'd asked Ray himself. Neither gave a satisfactory answer. And still haven't.
And I do appreciate the "leeway" Dave. I think this subject is the cusp of many other important subjects that are either poorly understood or are conceived in complete error by the church. I would be happy to contribute more to this conversation if you're interested...if not, I'll reserve further comments.
Btw, page 5 of that thread addresses some of these very questions--no need to "wade through" the rest. One point I made there sort of went over everyone's head, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.."
I have to wonder how you who believe a marriage isn't "legitimate" (or even a "marriage" at all) without the proper legal procedures, paperwork, rituals and accoutrements, can make sense out of Jesus' words above? If you've divorced your wife, according to scripture, you shall NOT marry another, because if you do, you will be "committing adultery". But, then how can you have "married another" if it was, by definition, ILLEGAL to do so? ...Jesus said one can "marry" into an illegitimate (adulterous) marriage. What do you make of that?
-
Dave, I said I agreed with you on your interpretation of the Woman at the Well.. that the "husband" she had was not HER husband (another's!). That was my point in bringing it up. Yes, I interpreted the other "5 husbands" to mean illicit husbands from the context of the reading, but no, I can't prove that. I don't see, however, how that changes my point (and yours) that the "husband she had" was actually another's. She was an adulteress. I guess you're trying to say that Jesus was not actually calling her (illicit husband) HER HUSBAND, but rather, A HUSBAND. I'm fine with that. But I showed many other scriptures which do use the word "husband" or "wife" of one who is NOT lawfully married to that person (just in a 'sexual union')--matter of fact the parallel scripture of this account is John the Baptist's decrying of King Herod's "wife" (not his--actually his brother's). I showed that as well.
I used to teach my sunday school boys along the lines of what you are saying here. I felt it was important to let them know how important the sexual act was. But it was not needed or helpful to lay on them the burden of being 'eternally' ""married"" to someone just because they had fallen to temptation.
Well, Dave that's where I may have done differently, if I was apt to teach. Paul (and nature itself) teaches that a sexual union with another-- is either a sin against your own body, the consequences of which follow you for life--else it's a "marriage" wherein you've become "one flesh" (until death). We absolutely should teach others that truth and not be as the heathen with their casual, inconsequential attitudes towards sex.
That being said, I did not start the Marriage Vow thread to teach anything, as I explicitly stated (unless you imply I'm lying). I was, and am, still seeking clarity on all of this. I DO NOT think Ray "completed his thoughts" with his (short) study of marriage and said so up front. I asked the very same questions to the forum as I'd asked Ray himself. Neither gave a satisfactory answer. And still haven't.
And I do appreciate the "leeway" Dave. I think this subject is the cusp of many other important subjects that are either poorly understood or are conceived in complete error by the church. I would be happy to contribute more to this conversation if you're interested...if not, I'll reserve further comments.
Btw, page 5 of that thread addresses some of these very questions--no need to "wade through" the rest. One point I made there sort of went over everyone's head, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.."
I have to wonder how you who believe a marriage isn't "legitimate" (or even a "marriage" at all) without the proper legal procedures, paperwork, rituals and accoutrements, can make sense out of Jesus' words above? If you've divorced your wife, according to scripture, you shall NOT marry another, because if you do, you will be "committing adultery". But, then how can you have "married another" if it was, by definition, ILLEGAL to do so? ...Jesus said one can "marry" into an illegitimate (adulterous) marriage. What do you make of that?
Where did John the baptist refer to Herod's brother's wife, Herodias, as Herod's wife? He told him it was not lawful to take his BROTHER'S wife, and to marry her, but nevertheless he did marry her and this is why John withstood him. So we ask you to provide the reference on where paul say's "you can be married to a harlot, but she is not your wife" and now I ask you also for this reference where John the baptist calls Herod's brother's wife, herod's wife? This is what I've seen:
Mark 6:17-19
17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
19 Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not:
luke 3:18 And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.
luke 3:19 But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,
luke 3:20 Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.
Matthew 14:3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife,
Matthew 14:4 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
I'm pretty sure I answered your last question in the other thread but I will give you a second reply. Jesus can say what He said the same way He could say that lusting after a woman in your heart is committing ADULTERY. You don't have to physical touch her OR have SEX with her. Lusting is enough! The law is SPIRITUAL. Christ's words are SPIRIT.
Jesus didn't say that marrying again is adultery. You really are twisting His words. He said if you marry again and the DIVORCE is NOT legal i.e. due to PORNEA, then the new marriage is illegal and therefor any sexual intercourse to folllow-- adultry.
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.
It is the SUM of the word that is truth. Remember this. Two or three witnesses. I have added the sum for you.
-
Let me see if I understand your doctrine, Alex...
You can "marry" a woman and yet she is not your "wife" (Herod/Herodias)
Two can be "one flesh" but not be "married" (1 Cor. 6)
A man can "illegally marry" another woman in an adulterous affair (Matt 19:9).
Do you realize you're in essence saying what I've said?
Somewhere also, you said a man can "lust after his wife".. 'Fraid not. The word is associated with sin and sinful thoughts...from the Greek epithymeō, to "covet something forbidden". Doesn't apply. You seem a little confused, Alex.
-
Let me see if I understand your doctrine, Alex...
You can "marry" a woman and yet she is not your "wife" (Herod/Herodias)
Two can be "one flesh" but not be "married" (1 Cor. 6)
A man can "illegally marry" another woman in an adulterous affair (Matt 19:9).
Do you realize you're in essence saying what I've said?
Somewhere also, you said a man can "lust after his wife".. 'Fraid not. The word is associated with sin and sinful thoughts...from the Greek epithymeō, to "covet something forbidden". Doesn't apply. You seem a little confused, Alex.
I am not saying what you've said. Here is what you said:
"You can be "married to a harlot", says Paul... But, she is not your wife! Deep things, brother."
This is not true. Paul never said that. Kat and John have both refuted you on this point as well as myself.
"But I showed many other scriptures which do use the word "husband" or "wife" of one who is NOT lawfully married to that person (just in a 'sexual union')--matter of fact the parallel scripture of this account is John the Baptist's decrying of King Herod's "wife" (not his--actually his brother's). I showed that as well."
Again this is not true. No where does John the baptist call King Herod's brother's wife, Herodias, King Herod's wife. I did not found this in any of the gospels.
One point I made there sort of went over everyone's head, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.."
I have to wonder how you who believe a marriage isn't "legitimate" (or even a "marriage" at all) without the proper legal procedures, paperwork, rituals and accoutrements, can make sense out of Jesus' words above? If you've divorced your wife, according to scripture, you shall NOT marry another, because if you do, you will be "committing adultery". But, then how can you have "married another" if it was, by definition, ILLEGAL to do so? ...Jesus said one can "marry" into an illegitimate (adulterous) marriage. What do you make of that?
What? Jesus never said it was illegal to remarry another. He didn't say if you marry another you are comitting adultry. He said if you marry again and the DIVORCE is NOT legal i.e. due to PORNEA, then the new marriage is illegal and therefor any sexual intercourse to folllow-- adultry.
Don't try and lump me into your twisted perspective of marriage. How dare you do that?
Lastly, Lusting is not only associated with only negative things. Jesus greatly desired, LUSTED, to eat the final feast with His apostles.
Luk_22:15 AndG2532 he saidG2036 untoG4314 them,G846 With desireG1939 I have desiredG1937 to eatG5315 thisG5124 passoverG3957 withG3326 youG5216 beforeG4253 IG3165 suffer:G3958
Mat_5:28 ButG1161 IG1473 sayG3004 unto you,G5213 ThatG3754 whosoeverG3956 lookethG991 on a womanG1135 to lustG1937 after herG846 hath committed adulteryG3431 with herG846 alreadyG2235 inG1722 hisG848 heart.G2588
pithumeō
ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
From G1909 and G2372; to set the heart upon, that is, long for (rightfully or otherwise): - covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).
Total KJV occurrences: 16
You're wrong Neo.
-
Okay, last time going around the mulberry bush with you...
You DID (inadvertently?) express the following:
You can "marry" a woman and yet she is not your "wife" (Herod/Herodias)
When you quote the scripture which says Herod had "married" his brother's wife. Then you say "she is not his wife".
Two can be "one flesh" but not be "married" (1 Cor. 6)
When you refer to the scripture from Paul, "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Then you deny you have thus "married" yourself to the harlot. One flesh; but not married. Your view.
A man can "illegally marry" another woman in an adulterous affair (Matt 19:9).
When you recognize Christ's words that a person who divorces his wife (without cause--no fornication occurred!), then "MARRIES" another commits adultery. You are saying what I am saying.
As for your original "lust" comments, you must have edited them out because I can't find them now. ::)
-
1Co 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Yes, the mulberry bush is not going to be gone around much longer. What you have, Neo, is an idol of the heart. It is at best 'strife over words'. You want to 'define' what 'getting married' is. You err. You want to define now what 'lust' is. You err. The best you can do against these scriptures others have provided you is to twist THEIR words against them, and misquote the scripture you use to 'support' your contention. No amount of scripture provided is going to move you off your position. And no doubt you are thinking the same thing about Alex and others.
Know what...I can't even support EVERYTHING that's been said in these threads. BUT...I'M NOT HERE TO DO THAT! This forum has a purpose, and it is NOT to allow everybody with a bible to 'preach, teach, or contend'--certainly not unchallenged.
"We" agree on many things even concerning this topic. Sexual sin is serious and wrong. Beyond that, the one (from my chair) who is 'disagreeing' the most is YOU concerning the 'contractual nature' of 'getting married', which is what Ray taught.
I'd hope we also agree that God forgives sinners, but holds people to their vows. One of the heroes of faith listed in Hebrews is there just for that reason. He may well have wished he'd never made it.
I'm going to leave the thread open for an unspecified period of time, but I will lock it soon enough...and I will not allow this 'discussion' to be brought up again. I hope that is understood.
-
Okay, last time going around the mulberry bush with you...
You DID (inadvertently?) express the following:
You can "marry" a woman and yet she is not your "wife" (Herod/Herodias)
When you quote the scripture which says Herod had "married" his brother's wife. Then you say "she is not his wife".
Two can be "one flesh" but not be "married" (1 Cor. 6)
When you refer to the scripture from Paul, "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Then you deny you have thus "married" yourself to the harlot. One flesh; but not married. Your view.
A man can "illegally marry" another woman in an adulterous affair (Matt 19:9).
When you recognize Christ's words that a person who divorces his wife (without cause--no fornication occurred!), then "MARRIES" another commits adultery. You are saying what I am saying.
As for your original "lust" comments, you must have edited them out because I can't find them now. ::)
Definitely some serious twisting of scripture here.
You think that just because Herod married her but she was not his wife LAWFULLY that this somehow proves your twisted view that marriage and being married occurs through the act of sexual intercourse? You think John was insinuating that Herod had sex with her? Have you already forgotten what Christ said about lawful marriage?
Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
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.
Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
There is no indication that Herodias was put away by Philip. In fact, because John still call's her Herod's brother's wife, the wife of Philip, it is clear she was still legally married to THE BROTHER. Therefor Herod's marriage to her was NOT legal regardless of whether Herod went ahead and married her! This is why john by inspiration of God condemned the marriage and why he did not refer to Herodias as Herod's wife but the brother's. She was in God's eyes, LEGALLY, Herod's brother's wife! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with your twisted view on marriage.
I'm sorry but what? 1 Cor 6 say's nothing about being married to the harlot. It says joined to her as in you put your penis inside her and you two become ONE. Another term for that would be FORNICATION. You two are NOT married, you are ONE body and this is a reprehensible assault on the temple of God because you are to be the BODY OF CHRIST. ONE WITH THE LORD.
1 Cor 6 :18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1 Cor 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1 Cor 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Yes a man can ILLEGALLY marry a woman in an adulterous affair but that has NOTHING to do with SEX. That has to do with God NOT recognizing their marriage because the woman is currently MARRIED to ANOTHER man. A man commits adultery when he leaves his wife without a cause because he is still married to her and going and fornicating with your new "wife" is SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE--ADULTERY! What is so difficult in understanding that?
I'm in agreement with Dave that your perverted view on marriage is an idol of the heart. Marriage DOES NOT occur through SEX. There is a reason the BRIDE of Christ is preparing herself for the MARRIAGE which involves a SUPPER. The marriage supper happens AT THE WEDDING CEREMONY!
Revelation 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
-
"What marriage then is, or isn't, has nothing to do with "local customs" or "legally accepted practices", "requirements", or "traditions". It is what God says it is or it is nothing at all."
That is the best answer I see in this entire thread, Dave is spot on !
This one thing I will add, Christ says that if a man looks upon a women with lust he has already committed adultery, the days of the physical act to be guilty were over a long time ago.
Be careful how you look upon a women from the time Christ said that til present day.
-
It's not mine, Rick, although it IS true that it is what God says it is.
-
Alex:
Yes a man can ILLEGALLY marry a woman in an adulterous affair but that has NOTHING to do with SEX.
Ok, I'll bite one more time...Tell me how--I mean precisely--one gets "illegally married". How does it occur? HOW did Herod marry his brother's wife?
And how long have you been married, Alex?
-
Dave, I’ve considered what you said and your accusation against me. I wasn’t going to respond as I know it’s pointless—you are convinced of your belief and honestly, I don’t care much at all to change your mind. But at the same time I’d like you to know where I was coming from in my thoughts on this matter of marriage…Because you’ve misjudged me. It is you who have erred.
You tell me I have an “idol” because I won’t agree with your contrary opinion. You subscribe to a nebulous “contract theory” of marriage—most likely, merely because, as you said, “Ray taught it". Yet I’ve asked wherein this “contract” is outlined in Scripture… Still, nothing. But you most assuredly believe in it. And yet I have an idol.
Well, we all have idols Dave. But I believe I’ve searched the scriptures enough to reject the contract theory. I’ve asked here what the Contract was--what the Vow was-- that you are 100% convinced exists, and NO ONE has produced even a watery theory of it. Not ONE SCRIPTURE for my consideration… A contract is a promise. If ‘marriage is a promise’, then you have the burden of explaining what it is I am promising, to be “legally married”.
That’s all I’ve asked. You, Dave, said “God holds people to their vows”. I’m not so sure about that, but even so, WHAT is the VOW I am being held to if I’ve married a wife? You tell me and I’ll forever shut up about this. And that’s a promise.
This subject has been on my heart for many years now… I’m not real sure why, and I’m not sure it matters as much as perhaps I think it does. If you’ll never marry, it probably doesn’t matter at all to you. But I’ve seen a parallel among a few here which reminds me of the anger I’ve seen in others who are confronted by our refutation of hell and ‘free will’. THAT is an idol of the heart of almost all churched Christians I’ve ever known. They truly WANT their free will and Hell for those who disagree.
I just sense a greasy similarity amongst some here (and others I’ve spoken to) who otherwise seem to “get it”, but when it comes to sexual sin, they manage to contort themselves into fantastic theo-logic pretzels. Is there a simple explanation for this? Like maybe those who KNOW the scriptures sufficiently well want an excuse to “marry” (another) mate of their choosing without the guilt of knowing it is adultery? In other words, if your ‘youthful sin’ of fornication with another is just that—a childish mistake—then you’re not disqualified for “marriage” to another! (per Jesus’ commands to the contrary in Matt 19:9) Having a ‘legitimate Christian marriage’ then is still possible—with God’s blessing!—because you were never (legally) married before! A simple accounting error is all. Forgot to submit the paperwork. Transaction voided…
So God gives you a Mulligan. Right?
Well, believe me, I‘ve seem this play out before my own eyes, even amongst my own family. Time and time again. And the rotten consequences to follow. Maybe that’s why it matters to me.
Or, maybe it’s just a silly idol of my heart. Judge rightly my friend. But don't accuse from a lack of evidence.
-
Neo,
You are very close to the unpardonable sin, which is boring me to tears :'(.
Everyone here is free (?) to believe what they will (?).
But Ray's study on marriage was backed up by Scriptures. Ray convinced me from the Scriptures.
I have read your posts----no cigar. I find your statements incoherent and twisting of the Scriptures.
So, did I say this about you before or someone else? "Fox in the hen house, Run chicks, Run!
John, the bored one
-
I know Paul the apostle said that a man who does not take care of his family is worst than a man without faith, so we can say that taking care of one’s family is a part of the contract or maybe the entire contract.
Don’t forget about adultery, that would be another part of the contract too, no other than the one you married. :)
-
Neo, you're essentially asking me to 'back up' every statement made by everybody else. No can do.
For instance: I don't know about this concept of "being married in God's eyes". Maybe it's in scripture...I'm not the world's greatest bible-scholar by a long shot...but it sounds to me like a 'made-up' phrase. I am also unsure about the concept of God "honoring" ANYTHING we do, including the marriage of two opposite-sexed virgins. He is known to 'bless' and to 'condemn' and to 'forgive' all our many choices (and I'm probably leaving some out), but I don't know about Him "honoring" those choices. Surely some of our choices are 'honorable' and some 'dishonorable', but I believe it's the nature of the choice and not that God 'honors' the choice that determines these things.
I also don't see Jesus EVER having a conversation with any NOT His disciples where He talks plainly without riddles or questions, or parables. I don't believe He is the new Moses explaining or arguing law with scribes and pharisees. There is something in His statement that "it was not so from the beginning" and "the hardness of your hearts" that take his discourse with them out of that scenario.
Breaking a vow is a serious sin in Scripture--one that is repeatedly mentioned in multiple contexts. It doesn't much matter what the vow is--if you made it, you are bound to keep it unless released from that obligation. Still, Jesus died for our sins. I know it's not fair that He did. And though we cannot 'un-wring' a bell, we can accept forgiveness and get on with the rest of our lives.
Ya see...I've also thought about these things for a long time...only not 'topically'. I think you are unable to 'agree' with what Ray taught mostly because you have gone far beyond what he taught and so even his simple definition and explanation of the use of the word to denote a contract 'contradicts' your assumption that 'sex seals the deal' and any act of sex by a virgin "marries" them "in the eyes of God" forever (or at least as long as this life lasts).
I believe what Paul is saying is: don't wring the bell. There are consequences to our actions, and we may well have to live with them. But they are not "marriage". If some are 'greasy', it's often because they themselves are "scribes" and have neither desire nor intention to 'live godly in Christ Jesus'. They are just the other side of the coin.
Anyway. We aren't a church. We're a web-forum. And a web-forum different from most. It's all right there in the rules. Nobody is required to 'agree' with anything Ray taught. And we're not required to try to 'change your mind'.