Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Romans71-2 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Who passes sentence on those who lie cheat, murder and steal? Who, then, is the earthly administrator of "the law"?

Here's another....
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Marriage is bound by God's law, yes, but man is the a administrator of the Law on this earth and the "writing of divorcement" (a legal contract) also confirms that marriage has to do with legality. So what's the problem with paying the license?. I sometimes jokingly tell my Wife that the license was "the best $25 I ever spent" and she says "I thought it was $15". Neither of us can remember. . The Bible says to obey every "ordinance of man".


Right, & I don't see that buying a marriage license causes us to disobey God in any manner.

But I do see moving in together, shacking up, I believe today they call it being in a relationship, that's disobedience against God.

I believe I saw a TV show many years ago where man & woman waited till the preach made his round to marry, without moving in together, shacking up, or starting a relationship.

I have not been on Facebook for quite sometime, but over there I had people that wanted to be my friend & on their Facebook page they would have their self listed as in a relationship, which is a shack-up, living together without marrying, usually without planning on getting married.

I can see how in days gone by this might be a hardship on some because of lack of a preacher or someone to marry them. Yet here in this United States today there's no such excuse, & of course I've been talking about the days we live in, not yesterday years. Plus most people that I know of have an engagement period, if they're not close to someone that can marry them they can schedule to be married at a future time without shacking up, moving in together, are starting a relationship.

And in yesterday years in the west when a man & a woman wanted to get married on a wagon train the leader of the wagon train would marry them. Edited by Jerry80871852
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would have to agree with that as the only real sources of any hint of true Christianity came from small groups of puritans, separatists (Baptists) and pilgrims which had very little to do with the p

I agree. I tried to make a point that in our day there's no excuse to just shack up, live together, move in together, start a relationship as is getting very popular in our day. Most that do that do s

Elizabeth wasn't a Catholic queen either...it was her sister Mary who was Catholic. Elizabeth supported the Anglican (yes, pseudo-Catholic, I know, but still different) church started by her father. T

Which one of the gubbers has it right as a model we should follow? Russia, India, Egypt, France, Germany or USA

'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing wax --
Of cabbages -- and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have wings.'

I'm a citizen of the Kingdom of God --- I'll go with that. The Pastor had the right to marry the old couple as long as it conformed to scripture The USA gubbers will marry anything and do. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1 Cor 6:1 (KJV)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I agree Jerry, and would like to think that in those times my love and I would either wait for the preacher, or make the long journey (accompanied) to the nearest town to make it proper.

I only mentioned it to make the.point that the intent of proper marriage was evident.
Even in those times there were people who simply shacked up together, and it was considered different - the intent was the difference.

The "act" was the same, but the intent was.different - today "common law marriage" lacks the commitment and intent (generally), and is therefore just a "nicer" way to say living in sin, just as "defacto" is nothing more than a non-convicting way of saying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I agree Jerry, and would like to think that in those times my love and I would either wait for the preacher, or make the long journey (accompanied) to the nearest town to make it proper.

I only mentioned it to make the.point that the intent of proper marriage was evident.
Even in those times there were people who simply shacked up together, and it was considered different - the intent was the difference.

The "act" was the same, but the intent was.different - today "common law marriage" lacks the commitment and intent (generally), and is therefore just a "nicer" way to say living in sin, just as "defacto" is nothing more than a non-convicting way of saying it.


I agree. I tried to make a point that in our day there's no excuse to just shack up, live together, move in together, start a relationship as is getting very popular in our day. Most that do that do so because of rebellion against the authority of God & the authority God gives our government. And so have even many pastors & preachers that rebel against the authority that God gives our government by saying you need no marriage license, just come to me & I will perform the ceremony & you will be ready to go.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It often amazes me how people justify rebelling against authority, when God so clearly values the lines of authority He has put in place.
This is a general statement by the way, and not directed at anyone in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It often amazes me how people justify rebelling against authority, when God so clearly values the lines of authority He has put in place.
This is a general statement by the way, and not directed at anyone in this thread.

Considering America began in this manner it's little wonder that most Americans continue to have a rebellious attitude.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Considering America began in this manner it's little wonder that most Americans continue to have a rebellious attitude.


This is one of the most ignorant statements I've read in a long time. Bah-ruther. Living off the fruits of our founders and having this attitude. For shame.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This can be a bit tricky but I don't think that the rules of Romans 13 can be applied to mandating that a believer obtain a state license to marry. My issue is deciding between what is God's and what is "Caesar's" and my marriage does not belong to Caesar so at what point do I follow the Bible's prescription for marriage, and when does the law cross the line.

I did see someone give a little bit of a history of the marriage contract and I will add a little bit. The marriage contract was introduced in America in the 1800s when the south wanted a way to get around the laws regarding slavery. A slave was considered liberated from their servitude if they had married a non-indentured white person. If a slave escaped and was married, the slave owner could not hold any claim to the slave. The way that the south got around this was that all marriages needed to be approved by the state and the next step was to make the prerequisites to get a contract so difficult that a black person could not obtain one and hence could not get married. Eventually the marriage contract became a natural part of our legal system.

Now there seems to be an implied contract where it is said that Moses gave a "bill of divorcement". That is not a contract, and there was never a written agreement prior to the marriage. Jesus made it clear that from the beginning it was not so but Moses permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts.

There are times when believers have to say no to the government as with the Hebrew children in bowing to the image in Daniel 2-3, or the apostles refusing to remain speechless when commanded by the law to cease preaching Christ.

The problem with a marriage license is that it yokes you with the state, and you are subject to the remaining laws like that of divorce and child support. One court even argued that the marriage contract made the state the owner of a families children that chose to home school their kids. Child Protective Services maintains the right to seize children based on the doctrine of parens patriae (parent of the nation/state).

In divorces, most if not all by now states are "no fault" divorce states. The only grounds necessary for a divorce are "irreconcilable differences" or "irretrievable breakdown of marriage". In other words, if the spouse don't love you anymore, for whatever reason, they can ask the state to dissolve your marriage. If a woman finds another man, commits adultery with him, she can sue for divorce, make the husband pay child support and alimony even though she was the one that caused the breakdown through the act of adultery ( Proverbs 30:20). I personally have a family member experiencing this now where her husband moved in with his paramour, divorced her and now she is paying child support and may end up in jail because she can't afford to pay support and live at the same time and he makes 3x as much as she does (in addition to his paramour's income).

The divorcing spouse can also take a large portion of your property as well which would not be possible outside of the contract made with the state. This causes each spouse to be a surety to the state. There are some helpful guidelines in Proverbs about entering into contracts:

"A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend." Prov 17:18
"Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts." Prov 22:26
"My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger,Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth." Prov 6:1-2
And of course regarding oaths in Matthew 5, Jesus said let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay. It is one thing to follow the laws of the land that don't require you to agree with the state about how your personal life should be conducted, quite another when you have to make an oath under the state for permission to call each other husband and wife.

And, as unpopular as this may sound, there is no place in Scripture where a woman was ever permitted to divorce and Jesus implied that divorce originally was never permitted under any circumstance. The only exception was fornication which in Deuteronomy was the husband learning later that the wife had lied about her sexual status prior to the marriage. Yet the states allow circuMVention of God's word.

"He that findeth a wife findeth a good thing and obtaineth favor from the Lord"

Tricky subject for sure, but I do not believe that a couple who wants to be married must subject themselves to the states permission to do so.

Edited by DrJamesA
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The only exception was fornication which in Deuteronomy was the husband learning later that the wife had lied about her sexual status prior to the marriage.

I know of a local woman whose husband one day announced that he "liked men too". What implicatiosn does that have? Well, bringing home the AIDS virus to your wife, not to mention all the other STDs. I know of several others where Dad was caught molesting the kids..........Fornication, my friend, is ALL sexual sin, including, but not limited to, adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, bestiality and incest. Actually the Law of Moses didn't provide "divorce" for child molesting or Sodomite Dads....it prescribed DEATH.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I know of a local woman whose husband one day announced that he "liked men too". What implicatiosn does that have? Well, bringing home the AIDS virus to your wife, not to mention all the other STDs. I know of several others where Dad was caught molesting the kids..........Fornication, my friend, is ALL sexual sin, including, but not limited to, adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, bestiality and incest. Actually the Law of Moses didn't provide "divorce" for child molesting or Sodomite Dads....it prescribed DEATH.


And there's your divorce for beastiality LOL
But for the purposes of giving a bill of divorce, in that context, fornication was described as the woman having sex with someone other than her husband and later the husband discovered that she lied about it prior to the marriage. The simple etymology of the word fornication is voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Of the 34 times or so it is used in the Bible, it is always a reference to an act between a man and woman, or used symbolically regarding a spiritual fornication.
But as you stated above, regardless of the definition given to a particular sin, the results of being caught in it in the OT were the same. Edited by DrJamesA
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Considering America began in this manner it's little wonder that most Americans continue to have a rebellious attitude.


True, but many Americans will refuse to see it that way, even many professing Christians. It was rebellion against authority that made this country come about.

And its quite easy to see, Americans hates authority, which comes natural to the fallen man. I suppose that is why these verses are so true.


Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

One place the true nature of mankind truly comes out is at sporting events, even in high school football game. I have to say its amazing at how many professing Christians acts that has a son playing high school football, when their son's team loses they let the hate fly, boo the referees, some even talking bad about the players of the other team.

Rebellion against authority is the main reason many will spend eternity enduring everlasting destruction & not in the comfort of Heaven.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


True, but many Americans will refuse to see it that way, even many professing Christians. It was rebellion against authority that made this country come about.

And its quite easy to see, Americans hates authority, which comes natural to the fallen man. I suppose that is why these verses are so true.


Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

One place the true nature of mankind truly comes out is at sporting events, even in high school football game. I have to say its amazing at how many professing Christians acts that has a son playing high school football, when their son's team loses they let the hate fly, boo the referees, some even talking bad about the players of the other team.

Rebellion against authority is the main reason many will spend eternity enduring everlasting destruction & not in the comfort of Heaven.

That is true Jerry. Also, if one really studies the beginnings of America it's clear that for most Christianity was secondary at best, and most often farther down the list. Even among the "most Christian" they had stated goals of pursuing wealth as their formost goal. Those who did have an idea of spreading Christianity demanded it be according to their own rules, not in accord with Scripture. Booze and slaves was the primary means colonial Americans used to attain their wealth. All this while feeling justified in stealing the land of those here before them and then feeling justified in slaughtering them if they didn't simply agree to get out of thier way.

So many Christians in America have bought into the lying propaganda that the colonials were not British citizens (which most of them were), that they were highly oppressed (which they were not; in fact the American colonists had unprecedented freedom, often much better than those actually living in England or in other colonies), that American colonists were outstanding Christians (not according to Scripture) and that somehow their act of rebellion in direct disobedience to the Word of God was somehow not only acceptable but an act of God.

Scripture is clear that all nations are evil and will be judged by God and that applies to all nations, including America and England, not just China and Russia.

For the first few centuries Christians were of one accord with regards to the sinfulness of rebellion and warfare. It wasn't until Constantine, the uniting of church and state and the rise of the RCC that the idea of "Christians" engaging in rebellion and war for the things of this world came into acceptance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

America was born out of oppression. Go spend a few years in North Korea, my friend, come back and we'll discuss it again.

America was born out of rebellion, not oppression.

What was truly born during a time of oprression? The spread of Christianity! Christianity spread under great oppression and did so by Christians living in accord with the Word of God, gladly laying down self for the sake of Christ. If and when oppression, persecution, even torture and death came upon them, they held true to the Word of God. Refusing to give in to the flesh, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ. They did not rebel, they didn't raise an army, they obeyed the Word of God and the "world was turned upside down" to the glory of God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That is true Jerry. Also, if one really studies the beginnings of America it's clear that for most Christianity was secondary at best, and most often farther down the list. Even among the "most Christian" they had stated goals of pursuing wealth as their formost goal. Those who did have an idea of spreading Christianity demanded it be according to their own rules, not in accord with Scripture. Booze and slaves was the primary means colonial Americans used to attain their wealth. All this while feeling justified in stealing the land of those here before them and then feeling justified in slaughtering them if they didn't simply agree to get out of thier way.

So many Christians in America have bought into the lying propaganda that the colonials were not British citizens (which most of them were), that they were highly oppressed (which they were not; in fact the American colonists had unprecedented freedom, often much better than those actually living in England or in other colonies), that American colonists were outstanding Christians (not according to Scripture) and that somehow their act of rebellion in direct disobedience to the Word of God was somehow not only acceptable but an act of God.

Scripture is clear that all nations are evil and will be judged by God and that applies to all nations, including America and England, not just China and Russia.

For the first few centuries Christians were of one accord with regards to the sinfulness of rebellion and warfare. It wasn't until Constantine, the uniting of church and state and the rise of the RCC that the idea of "Christians" engaging in rebellion and war for the things of this world came into acceptance.


Yes, a form of Christianity mixed with much worldliness. Most trying to have the best that both the world & God has to offer.

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Of course its still practiced today throughout this country in many churches, more especially those teaching & preaching the prosperity gospel.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

America was born out of rebellion, not oppression.

What was truly born during a time of oprression? The spread of Christianity! Christianity spread under great oppression and did so by Christians living in accord with the Word of God, gladly laying down self for the sake of Christ. If and when oppression, persecution, even torture and death came upon them, they held true to the Word of God. Refusing to give in to the flesh, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ. They did not rebel, they didn't raise an army, they obeyed the Word of God and the "world was turned upside down" to the glory of God.

I would have to agree with that as the only real sources of any hint of true Christianity came from small groups of puritans, separatists (Baptists) and pilgrims which had very little to do with the politics of the country as a whole (with a small exception of Rhode Island-Roger Williams-and parts of Virginia where Baptists insisted on the "Bill of Rights" be added to the constitution before they would ratify it).
The country itself was named after Amerigo Vaspucci who was a devout Roman Catholic who openly stated his ideas for the use of this land for the Vatican. The capital of the country was planted in a Roman Catholic dominated state called MARY land (Maryland) and the capitol city named after the Roman Catholic Columbus who was commissioned to search out the land by the Catholic Queen Elizabeth and King Ferdinand.
All of the buildings were designed and created by Jesuits and Freemasons and the symbolism has permeated everything from all of our government structures to our dollar bill which displays the Latin (language of Rome) words "Novus Ovum Seclorum" New World Order right under the 13 tiered pyramid. Our entire legal system is based on the pax romana of Rome. When I went to lawschool, it was clear that you could not understand court decorum with out a laymen's knowledge of Latin. The political body that governs all the world affairs is located at 666 United Nations Plaza.
So has this country been "blessed"? If you want to call it that. The blessing that has came out of it was the production of many fundamental missionaries and churches and for that reason alone I would say that God blessed the nation in SPITE of how it was founded, not because of how it was founded. But that same peaceful that we have enjoyed is also the means by which the antichrist obtains influence. Almost every dictator arose by declaring he could provide an answer to peace and poverty (Hitler perfect example);

"And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." Daniel 8:25
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." I Thess 5:3
Interesting enough the word that is used to label the Roman legal system "pax romana" means Roman Peace.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

:ot: America was not born out of rebellion. Puritans were not the source of Christianity in this country - they were Pharisaaical, to say the least, and did not believe in religious liberty. And reformed theology is Puritanism reborn. And it wasn't Queen Elizabeth, it was Queen Isabella. America was born out of oppression, whether any of you who want to believe otherwise accept that. Stop reading revisionist history and read original documents and the founders own words. Now, this is totally off-topic, so let's get back to the original topic. :11backtotopic:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

:ot: America was not born out of rebellion. Puritans were not the source of Christianity in this country - they were Pharisaaical, to say the least, and did not believe in religious liberty. And reformed theology is Puritanism reborn. And it wasn't Queen Elizabeth, it was Queen Isabella. America was born out of oppression, whether any of you who want to believe otherwise accept that. Stop reading revisionist history and read original documents and the founders own words. Now, this is totally off-topic, so let's get back to the original topic. :11backtotopic:

Thanks for the observation about Elizabeth. Yes it was Queen Isabella, sometimes I get the Catholic queens all mixed up.
And I wasn't vouching for the doctrinal correctness of the main groups that immigrated here, just that they are the only ones that represented any hint of Christians as opposed to those who mistakenly believe that men like George Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams et al were Christians.
The evidence can be found for oneself just by pulling out a wallet and looking at all of the Freemasonry and Illuminati symbols on the one dollar bill. And then one can ask, why was the capitol state called Mary land and just happened to be in the most Catholic dominated state in the union.
The facts I listed above are only a few examples that can be verified by anyone.
This is a rather long documentary, but it is one of the best on the history of Freemasonry's involvement in the structures of the country and it's influence on the beliefs of the "founding fathers". It also documents how people like David Barton quote documents out of context to try and prove that the founding fathers had some Christian beliefs. OK , now I'll get back on topic LOL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Elizabeth wasn't a Catholic queen either...it was her sister Mary who was Catholic. Elizabeth supported the Anglican (yes, pseudo-Catholic, I know, but still different) church started by her father. They ruled a completely different country than Isabella & Ferdinand.

Edited by salyan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Right, salyan. But, again, let's get back on topic. James, just so you know - when we request that the thread gets back on topic, that doesn't mean just one more off-topic post...If you would like to begin a thread to discuss your revisionist view of American history, feel free. But no more posts on it here in this thread. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And there's your divorce for beastiality LOL
But for the purposes of giving a bill of divorce, in that context, fornication was described as the woman having sex with someone other than her husband and later the husband discovered that she lied about it prior to the marriage. The simple etymology of the word fornication is voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Of the 34 times or so it is used in the Bible, it is always a reference to an act between a man and woman, or used symbolically regarding a spiritual fornication.
But as you stated above, regardless of the definition given to a particular sin, the results of being caught in it in the OT were the same.


Here's one
1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Brotherman, "you" and "ye" are always plural pronouns in the King James Bible; not only that, but it says "every one of you", and whi was this "every one of you" that Paul writing to and telling them to "abstain from fornication"? Read on:

1 Thessalonians 1;1

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;

So, "the church of the Thessalonians"..."everyone of you" ..."ye should abstain from fornication" was a church of unmarried people?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Here's one
1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Brotherman, "you" and "ye" are always plural pronouns in the King James Bible; not only that, but it says "every one of you", and whi was this "every one of you" that Paul writing to and telling them to "abstain from fornication"? Read on:

1 Thessalonians 1;1

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;

So, "the church of the Thessalonians"..."everyone of you" ..."ye should abstain from fornication" was a church of unmarried people?

When Paul is saying "everyone of you" he is speaking generally. When a preacher says "Everyone of you need to stop watching that garbage on tv" Does that mean everyone in the audience is. watching garbage? No. He is speaking to the ones that do.
There are other examples where "everyone" and "all" is a general statement. In Timothy, Paul says "yea and ALL that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim 3:12). There are many in America who have never suffered persecution because of their faith in Christ. In the first verses it says that in the last days "men shall be....." so does that mean ALL MEN will be blasphemers? , or is it a general statement. Now in verse 16 when it says "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God" all means all.
?The definitions are simple: when it's an unmarried person, it's fornication, when it's a married person, it's adultery. Notice how Paul separates the 2 terms in Gal 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these....adultery...fornication". They are listed separately because they have their own distinct definitions

And for some odd reason, my Greek explanation didn't post :( But I believe the word "ye" and "you all" is humon, and is used in the second person singular genitive case which in this context means a general audience Edited by DrJamesA
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

There is an issue that recently happened in my church that has left me feeling disappointed in the leadership.

I will try to make this as brief as possible.

A senior, widow lady, and a senior, widower man, both in their 80s, recently got married at my church (independent Baptist) I later learned they did not obtain a state issued marriage license and the pastor that conducted the ceremony did not require it.

Now they are going around representing themselves as "married". I feel as though the pastor that conducted the ceremony is helping the couple defraud the government. And if he can preform a "commitment-marriage" ceremony for them why can't another couple, who want to live together without the legalities of a marriage license, ask to have the same? IMHO, the pastorial staff is opening a can of worms.

Would you accept this couple as married or would you be concerned with the pastorial decision to waive the marriage license? And how do I deal with my disappointment?

 

Even though I understand the difference between marriage in the church as a covenant and marriage by the state as a legal and social construct, the idea of seperating the two is a relatively recent thing for me, so I have to be very careful that my opinion here is based on scripture and not on my cultural understanding.

 

I"m becoming more and more convinced that the state should just stay out of marriage and that a married couple would just be better off legally and financially registering their family as a corporation than the few tax breaks they get for being "married" by the state.

 

This is one of the reasons arguments in favor of homosexual "marriage" fall flat. You can incorporate and get the same tax benefits (actually, in most cases, you get more and better tax benefits) as a married couple. You can still designate anyone you chose to have POA or guardianship or conservatorship. You can still designate anyone you want to have access to your hospital room.

 

Anyway, back to your question. Yes, I would still accept them as married but, because of forty-five years of cultural conditioning, it would seem strange to me. But I would imagine I'd get over it, the same way I've gotten over all the other things that have left me confused.

 

I guess what I'd ask you is why is it so importan to you that the government be involved in this marriage? If marriage is a covenant between two people before God, and, ultimately, a religious matter, why does it bother you so that the government isn't involved?

 

Have you spoken to the pastor about your concerns?

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Even though I understand the difference between marriage in the church as a covenant and marriage by the state as a legal and social construct, the idea of seperating the two is a relatively recent thing for me, so I have to be very careful that my opinion here is based on scripture and not on my cultural understanding.

 

I"m becoming more and more convinced that the state should just stay out of marriage and that a married couple would just be better off legally and financially registering their family as a corporation than the few tax breaks they get for being "married" by the state.

 

This is one of the reasons arguments in favor of homosexual "marriage" fall flat. You can incorporate and get the same tax benefits (actually, in most cases, you get more and better tax benefits) as a married couple. You can still designate anyone you chose to have POA or guardianship or conservatorship. You can still designate anyone you want to have access to your hospital room.

 

Anyway, back to your question. Yes, I would still accept them as married but, because of forty-five years of cultural conditioning, it would seem strange to me. But I would imagine I'd get over it, the same way I've gotten over all the other things that have left me confused.

 

I guess what I'd ask you is why is it so importan to you that the government be involved in this marriage? If marriage is a covenant between two people before God, and, ultimately, a religious matter, why does it bother you so that the government isn't involved?

 

Have you spoken to the pastor about your concerns?

You might want to read over some of the earlier posts-It got quite lively!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Jesus went to as public wedding. The Bible says to "submit to every ordinance of man" and to "abstain from all appearance of evil.".

Have a wedding, make it legal, make it public, what's so hard about that?

No, Jesus was 'invited'-it wasn't for anyone who wanted, to just show up. And nowhere in that story does it mentoin anyone needing a license. Weddings were set by the parents, they brought them together, had a big shin-dig, the couple went and 'conjugated', and bam, they were married. And more shin-dig! Shin-dig for days!

 

And if we are to take your view of submitting to every ordinance of manm, I guess we'd best not stand against abortion, gay marriage, or the like. After all, it seems its okay for the government to make anything they like an 'ordinance'. Soon, perhaps, they'll get rid of that pesky 1st ammendment, and make it an ordinance that Christianbs can no longer assemble toether-guess we'd better be ready for that one.

 

The problem is that our government is supposed to be run by the people-us- not them. We have certain rights given to us by our Creator, and one of the first was the right of marriage-why does the state get to be party to it? For years they used that power to decide what races could or couldnt marry-is that biblical? Why do I need their permission to do what God has ordained us to do?

Edited by Ukulelemike
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jesus attended a wedding with lots of guests, for which he turned in the neighborhood 100 gallons of water into wine. Point is, it wasn't done quietly and discreetly like going down to the courthouse. Did I mention a license at that wedding? No, I said that the Bible says 'Be subject to every ordinance of man". Why? For testimony's sake. Abstain from appearance of evil. Get married, make it public, and by doing so, testify to the World that you are committed to honouring God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Jesus attended a wedding with lots of guests, for which he turned in the neighborhood 100 gallons of water into wine. Point is, it wasn't done quietly and discreetly like going down to the courthouse. Did I mention a license at that wedding? No, I said that the Bible says 'Be subject to every ordinance of man". Why? For testimony's sake. Abstain from appearance of evil. Get married, make it public, and by doing so, testify to the World that you are committed to honouring God.

Gotcha-sorry, I read into it, what wasn't there.  Yes, I agree with a public wedding-just like our Christianity, we need to be public about it.

 

I read a bit about wedding licenses in the history of the country, and its amazing the wide variety of ways it is viewed, state-by-state, even now. Some states still recognize common-law marriage, Pennsylvania only requires something signed by bride and groom, while some make the state a partner in the marriage, itself.  I believe that, if presided by a minister, and using the wedding ceremony page of a family Bible, all signed by the participants, turned in at the courthouse, fulfills any legal requirements for most states. No need for permission, which was originally intended to keep from interracial marriages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What is the difference between a wife and a concubine?

 

It was stated that marriage is a religious mater. What makes it a religious mater? That God ordained it? God said "Thou shalt not kill." He later stated that whatsoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Does this make murder and avenging blood a religious matter? God said "Thou shalt not steal." Same question. Is stealing a religious matter. I would challenge anyone to show me where Jesus, the apostles, or elders in the new testament presided over a wedding!! It is not there. It was stated that the families took care of weddings in Jesus day. That is mostly true, though they had to follow certain laws (yes I said laws, See the book of Ruth, as well as who Moses said the children of Israel were not allowed to marry). But according to the law if a man killed someone he did not face a court ordered executioner, he faced the avenger of blood. Who was that? The one the family appointed, a family member. My point? If you want the church to take care of marriage because it was handled by the family (I have yet to figure out the analogy), Should the church not also take care of murderers? But then the ones who decided that marriage was a church matter ( The RCC) would like that I am sure and have tried through the ages.

 

edited to add the two paragraphs are separate thoughts.

Edited by rancher824
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

What is the difference between a wife and a concubine?

 

It was stated that marriage is a religious mater. What makes it a religious mater? That God ordained it? God said "Thou shalt not kill." He later stated that whatsoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Does this make murder and avenging blood a religious matter? God said "Thou shalt not steal." Same question. Is stealing a religious matter. I would challenge anyone to show me where Jesus, the apostles, or elders in the new testament presided over a wedding!! It is not there. It was stated that the families took care of weddings in Jesus day. That is mostly true, though they had to follow certain laws (yes I said laws, See the book of Ruth, as well as who Moses said the children of Israel were not allowed to marry). But according to the law if a man killed someone he did not face a court ordered executioner, he faced the avenger of blood. Who was that? The one the family appointed, a family member. My point? If you want the church to take care of marriage because it was handled by the family (I have yet to figure out the analogy), Should the church not also take care of murderers? But then the ones who decided that marriage was a church matter ( The RCC) would like that I am sure and have tried through the ages.

 

edited to add the two paragraphs are separate thoughts.

I concede and will correct myself, in a manner. While there is nothing biblically that says it must be a church matter, there is also nothing that says it should be a civil government matter, but a family matter. If any involvement of the church is considered, it may be looking to thet marriage at Cana, where Jesus performed His first miracle, and the fact that the first marriage was conducted, if you will call it that, by The LORD God, Himself.

So, perhaps not necessary, but neither would it be unfounded. Especially as a means of reminding the couple of the importance of the marriage vows made.

 

In fact, much of civil activities are based less on God's laws, than Roman laws. From what I see, under the laws of Moses, there was no such thing as prison: the merson was judged for whatever occurred, and punishment, if found needed, was meted (sp?) out then and there, whether death, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, payment for the infraction, whatever. Would sure be cheaper to do it that way today! Insteasd we follow Roman laws styles, with long imprisonments, necessitating the care and feeding of the guilty, sometimes for decades.

 

What does this all have to do with marraige? I don't know-I'm just beginning to ramble now, down the rabbit trail, so I guess I'll stop before I end up telling old sea stories next!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 32 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...