-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What constitutes "marriage"?
- Thread starter menageriekeeper
- Start date
To menageriekeeper: mk? Is that you?Originally posted by menageriekeeper:
Now Gina, what do you suppose that first arguement was about?
So, I can move in with Man #1 and consider myself married, but when I catch him lookin' at the girl across the hall in her bikini, I get to decide that he's lusting and move out, considering myself now divorced because he committed adultry(after all, Christ says if a man lusts in his heart he has already committed adultry)? Then I can move on to Man #2 until I decide the same about him?
And you think God wouldn't mind all this cause after all I'm following His own Words? Or maybe I'm twisting things just a little to get my own way while still making it look like I'm doing what He expects?
I said nothing of what you're saying.
The Bible never condones divorce for lusting in one's heart, it says that if a person commits adultery, it CAN be a cause for divorce.
If you'd like to take it to that level, then also apply it to marriages you consider valid.
I'd like to try to accomodate you with a decent answer, but you're saying things I didn't say, and coming to a conclusion that I think that thing I didn't say is ok.
Stop that. LOL
Go back and read a bit more, there's obviously been a major misunderstanding, as I know it's not in your character to make assumptions. Seriously, not being smart aleck or anything, I honestly think there must be a post you're reading that wasn't mine, or a misunderstanding of what I really did say.
To Gregory: Come out from under there and fight like a man!
To Frenchy: [Insult snipped. BB Posting rule 3 require you to show grace to your fellow posters.]
bapmom: not at all! I didn't feel much attacked, just a bit overwhelmed at the number of responses. However, I don't feel good and it's nice to just sit here and drink my tea and have conversation.
Yes, there are many who just want to live together with no commitment. I don't believe that a Christian would do this, and usually they will not say they are married. That's one really good indication of a person's heart when living together!
However, I do believe that if they are living together and having a consensual physical relationship, they may still be married in the eyes of the Creator. It doesn't mean they are not still sinning by their lack of dedication to each other and their willful lack of commitment to the Lord. It doesn't mean that God condones their behavior, or that their marriage is holy. Especially if they refuse to accept the marriage. And how much worse is it to then divorce without just cause?
Ok, I've already said all that.
Let's try this a different way.
Please state what you believe must happen for a couple to be considered married.
[ April 13, 2006, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
Oh come on Gina what is your definition of FORNICATION and ADULTRY? let's hear how you justify your stance. God gave us a clear definition, bapmom and others have stated clearly what that is. So whats yours?
I will assume if you don't have one you are just pulling our leg.
Opinions mean nothing when ignoring God's word!
I will assume if you don't have one you are just pulling our leg.
Opinions mean nothing when ignoring God's word!
Marcia
Active Member
But the principle is to submit to governing laws. This is repeated in Romans 13. I think this implies that God wants us to validate marriage according to the laws of the land.
Which laws of the land did he break?
This was not violating the law of the land. He broke the Pharisees laws which were given to burden men.
How about the laws against hate speech? Could your comments in the past about other religions (some classified as cults) and such have broken those laws? Does this mean you were wrong?
I don't think I've broken any law against hate speech? There is no law in the U.S. that I know of that says I cannot discuss cults. I have not violated any U.S. law on hate speech. Please give evidence of such a law and show me how I have violated it if you are suggesting I have.BTW, I don't mean to throw off the topic completely, but this does somewhat relate.
Here is a picture of a Roman coin.
LINK
There is some kind of story behind how it came to be with those words.
But, does anyone know what those words mean? It obviously has something to do with the name "god". With divinity.
Hopefully someone on here knows their coins, or at least knows the history of this.
It is sometimes said that when Christ said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, that answer was just as impossible to figure out as the question. For...when you looked at the coin, it had Caesar's image and God's name.
Which one did he mean?
I don't know the truth of that though, but as that topic was brought up in here, I wanted to ask and see if people on here know if that is true or not.
Here is a picture of a Roman coin.
LINK
There is some kind of story behind how it came to be with those words.
But, does anyone know what those words mean? It obviously has something to do with the name "god". With divinity.
Hopefully someone on here knows their coins, or at least knows the history of this.
It is sometimes said that when Christ said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, that answer was just as impossible to figure out as the question. For...when you looked at the coin, it had Caesar's image and God's name.
Which one did he mean?
I don't know the truth of that though, but as that topic was brought up in here, I wanted to ask and see if people on here know if that is true or not.
Frenchy: [Edited to remove personal attack. Debate the issue and do not attack the character of the person holding the opposing view.]
Marcia: The law for Christ was the Jewish law. The San...you know the spelling, lol, had authority, right? That is what I refer to.
Now, the job of secular government is what? Is it not to punish those that do wrong, to keep laws from being broken? Aren't the only valid laws to be those that keep the law?
What is the law?
The law is to not commit crimes that God tells us not to commit. The enforcement of law is to be for the benefit of the people, to keep them from harm. Is that not what the scriptures tell us, that those in authority have our safety in mind?
Does that ring true in the laws we have today?
I'm losing it a bit here, stretching some things, going beyond even what I really think, but I think these are valid ideas and thoughts. Maybe not what is, but things to think about when considering what to think of it all.
I do think this conversation is becoming more complicated than it needs to be.
The question basically asks about marriage and what makes one.
I answered it.
The idea of marriage is simple.
The real question is not all of this back and forth, the real question is what is marriage, and what constitutes a marriage.
I answered it. Simply.
Now for those who didn't, please do answer it before continuing.
[ April 12, 2006, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
Marcia: The law for Christ was the Jewish law. The San...you know the spelling, lol, had authority, right? That is what I refer to.
Now, the job of secular government is what? Is it not to punish those that do wrong, to keep laws from being broken? Aren't the only valid laws to be those that keep the law?
What is the law?
The law is to not commit crimes that God tells us not to commit. The enforcement of law is to be for the benefit of the people, to keep them from harm. Is that not what the scriptures tell us, that those in authority have our safety in mind?
Does that ring true in the laws we have today?
I'm losing it a bit here, stretching some things, going beyond even what I really think, but I think these are valid ideas and thoughts. Maybe not what is, but things to think about when considering what to think of it all.
I do think this conversation is becoming more complicated than it needs to be.
The question basically asks about marriage and what makes one.
I answered it.
The idea of marriage is simple.
The real question is not all of this back and forth, the real question is what is marriage, and what constitutes a marriage.
I answered it. Simply.
Now for those who didn't, please do answer it before continuing.
[ April 12, 2006, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
Marcia
Active Member
We were discussing civil law and you said Jesus violated those laws - the laws of the land. We were not discussing the Pharisitical rules.
This is what you said:
Why don't you just admit that Jesus did not break the laws of the land?
Also, since you implied I may have broken laws against hate speech, I am waiting for evidence of that as well.
No Gina i really don't care what you think about me. you sound awfully paraniod and for no good reason. i have done nothing wrong on this board to anyone, that has been verified by many. not only that if i was whoever you think i am and they posted just like me, i do not see them as the problem but you. i believe your posts and your "unbiblical" opinions and manners speak for themselves!
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Okay, I'll admit my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my scenario, BUT.....
I really do want to clarify, you seem to be saying that two people, independent of government or any other accountability can just decide they are married and that makes it holy in God's eyes.
So if they can just decide that they are married, can't they just as easily decide they are no longer married?
If they are required to produce no proof of marriage other than a decision, then what proof do they have to provide for divorce?
God gave man government to provide us with order and accountability. If we eschew what God provided in favor of "following God's Word" then to whom or what are we accountable? (and not just with marriage, what about crime or real estate law?) I don't believe that we can separate marriage out from other forms of law, just because an element of the spiritual is included in the definition.
No accountablility leads to abuse and/or corruption.......
I really do want to clarify, you seem to be saying that two people, independent of government or any other accountability can just decide they are married and that makes it holy in God's eyes.
So if they can just decide that they are married, can't they just as easily decide they are no longer married?
If they are required to produce no proof of marriage other than a decision, then what proof do they have to provide for divorce?
God gave man government to provide us with order and accountability. If we eschew what God provided in favor of "following God's Word" then to whom or what are we accountable? (and not just with marriage, what about crime or real estate law?) I don't believe that we can separate marriage out from other forms of law, just because an element of the spiritual is included in the definition.
No accountablility leads to abuse and/or corruption.......
No Gina, the real question is what is your definition of FORNICATION and ADULTRY?
I see since you were not able to answer me, you pursued a personal attack once again. typical tactic of someone who doesn't have an answer. attack the messenger not the message
Just admit you are wrong on this and be done with it. or else give an explanation.
I see since you were not able to answer me, you pursued a personal attack once again. typical tactic of someone who doesn't have an answer. attack the messenger not the message
Just admit you are wrong on this and be done with it. or else give an explanation.
As to the coin:
The inscription reads (roughly) The Divine (god) Julius. It thus references a god, but not The Lord. I doubt any of Jesus' hearers in the passage would have considered Caesar a god in the Jewish sense.
On the back is the indication of when it was struck: under the questorship of Voconius Vitulus, circa 40 B.C.
Had He answered "Yes, pay taxes to Rome," he would have incurred the wrath of the anti-Rome population. Had He said "No, you may not pay taxes to Rome," he would have been inciting rebellion. Instead, He asked his listeners to consider what is the state's and what is God's. He didn't actually answer the question.
Paul used the same strategy when he was before the Sanhedrin:
"Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks."
As Jesus said, "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."
The inscription reads (roughly) The Divine (god) Julius. It thus references a god, but not The Lord. I doubt any of Jesus' hearers in the passage would have considered Caesar a god in the Jewish sense.
On the back is the indication of when it was struck: under the questorship of Voconius Vitulus, circa 40 B.C.
Jesus was adept at answering questions in a way that would not convict Him of blasphemy or treason but would set the hearers thinking about what He had said.
Had He answered "Yes, pay taxes to Rome," he would have incurred the wrath of the anti-Rome population. Had He said "No, you may not pay taxes to Rome," he would have been inciting rebellion. Instead, He asked his listeners to consider what is the state's and what is God's. He didn't actually answer the question.
Paul used the same strategy when he was before the Sanhedrin:
"Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks."
As Jesus said, "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."
My simple answer is that marriage is a civil contract. God established the family, church, and civil government. For the Christian, marriage is overlaid with the truth that it is a picture of Christ and the Church.
But it is still a civil contract for the good of society. One of the prime reasons for such a contract is the welfare of the children it produces.
Since I believe you identify yourself as a Calvinist,I will note that my above definition was held by the Puritans and is, I believe, a typical Calvinist view of marriage.
Karen
mk: yes, I am saying they can do it alone. I wouldn't recommend it, but I don't believe it invalidates a marriage to do so.
No, I believe divorce is much more difficult than marriage, and rightfully so. Even the civil courts make it much more difficult, although you have to admit, the scriptures do the best at making divorce nearly impossible.
Marcia: I may take until Friday to answer your question concerning the law. I went through this with someone about two months ago as far as looking up laws, and there's case law on it concerning putting down people because of their sexual orientation. It's listed in different wording, but it's effective and works the same as when you are able to call the authorities for racial discrimination by use of hateful words.
Frenchy: How did you know it was a stupid troll link, if you didn't read it? All it said was LINK
Are you pulling my leg? Did you really read it, and don't want to admit it?
RSR: Thanks for the definition of the inscription. I was not aware that Divinity (God) was put together with the name of Caesar. My mistake! That's why I asked though.
Still, people do use it to say it means we should pay taxes.
It seems to me that this passage would not be a correct one to use for that, since it wasn't exactly a clear answer, and obviously not meant to be.
What do you think?
No, I believe divorce is much more difficult than marriage, and rightfully so. Even the civil courts make it much more difficult, although you have to admit, the scriptures do the best at making divorce nearly impossible.
Marcia: I may take until Friday to answer your question concerning the law. I went through this with someone about two months ago as far as looking up laws, and there's case law on it concerning putting down people because of their sexual orientation. It's listed in different wording, but it's effective and works the same as when you are able to call the authorities for racial discrimination by use of hateful words.
Frenchy: How did you know it was a stupid troll link, if you didn't read it? All it said was LINK
Are you pulling my leg? Did you really read it, and don't want to admit it?
RSR: Thanks for the definition of the inscription. I was not aware that Divinity (God) was put together with the name of Caesar. My mistake! That's why I asked though.
Still, people do use it to say it means we should pay taxes.
It seems to me that this passage would not be a correct one to use for that, since it wasn't exactly a clear answer, and obviously not meant to be.
What do you think?