Duplicity of Marriage to a Xian.

[dragonfly]

Hi XP,

As far as I can tell, your last post was to me. Could I ask you to address your posts to the person you are speaking to, please, even though you already know that a) I may not answer and B) someone else may answer anyway?

It being stupid o'clock here, I will focus on a point which seems to have confused you.

You mentioned God and I mentioned God. We are talking about the same God; that is, the one who created the universe and mankind. God is not a term synonymous with the term CHURCH. God was here before anything, and the Bible talks of church in two contexts - the Hebrews who were called out of Egypt, and, the church Jesus Christ promised to build.

What I was trying to communicate to you is the idea (you will discover for yourself if you do the math) that the knowledge of God on the earth, especially up until the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, was an open secret.

Micah 5:7 And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarriea not for man, nor waita for the sons of men.

Ezekiel 11:16 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come.

Isaiah 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the end of the earth. Acts 13:47,48

Without doubt, historically, marriage was a family affair, not a church affair.

Regarding the involvement of the 'State' in providing a legal framework in which to register marriages, in what way can the State have more power than God, seeing He ordains every authority on earth, for His own purposes, regardless of how well or how badly they run things on His behalf? Christians have no permission to flout civil law.

Daniel 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men.


I'm not sure if there was another question specifically to me, but please repeat it if it's not been answered yet? Thanks. I do realise you may not agree with, or understand why I chose the above verses, but they are a start towards understanding why, in the later years, despite Israel having the law, knowledge of God was still abroad in the earth.

Jeremiah 40:2 And the captain of the guard took Jeremiah, and said to him, The LORD thy God has pronounced this evil upon this place.

 

[marksman]

Atheists and homosexuals have been arguing about this topic on the Internet in my country in an attempt to legitimise same sex marriage. They are adamant marriage pre-dated christianity so we can't claim any rights over it. Everyone should be allowed to marry who they want according to them.

You have to believe in atheistic evolution to believe that God and the church have nothing to do with marriage.

The other point is that if atheists and homosexuals are arguing against what is generally accepted, then you know that is the norm as they are not interested in arguing against a perversion of the truth. Having taken a long hard look at SSM, most of their demands are based on lies and rhetoric, with very little substance.

Maybe we complicate the issue of marriage and see it from a worldly perspective instead of trying to find God's way on the matter and enjoying it as he sees it.

This little comment from Answers in Genesis is quite informative.....

The Bible: Marriage is a gift of God. When God brought to Adam the woman who was specially created for him, he cried out joyfully: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). This joy over a real companion is the explicit will of God: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18). Marriage has been established by the Creator; it is therefore not a humanly devised institution. It existed from the beginning, as Jesus himself defined the origin and essence of marriage inMatthew 19:4-6: “Haven’t you read . . . that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” With the commandment “You shall not commit adultery,” God protects marriage and allows sexual intercourse only inside this close union (Eccles. 9:9). Sexual relations (becoming one flesh) before or outside marriage is branded as fornication and immorality.

To me, if you are going to discuss marriage, this must be the foundation of your discussion. To say, "well, I think this or I think that" is pointless unless the foundation is in place.

I realise that the way we celebrate marriage has many expressions from little intimate ceremonies to full blown everyone come dance party that goes on all day ((Jews and Greeks are good at this version). But...that does not change the fact or act of marriage.

In the comment above, there is nothing about how it is done. My suggestion is that we should see it as an opportunity to publicly affirm our commitment to each other, make our vows publicly and to show that we are serious about what we are doing.

The last one is very important as it is a known fact that people who live together or are in a de facto relationship break up more often and earlier than those who have gone through a public commitment.

I believe our greatest task as Christians is to produce a biblical marriage which means no divorce. At my wedding my vows included until death do us part. I doubt that there would be many marriages that do not go through difficult times. Ours has but despite everything my vow has kept me faithful. Because I made that vow, there is no "out" for me.

Because of that vow, we have to draw on the resources God gives us to keep our word. So far so good and I am not expecting it to change.

It is important that we do not see the laws of the land re marriage as a problem because we are being guided by God's ideas on the subject, so we accommodate the laws of the land without diminishing biblical foundations.

I am not aware of any law that says you cannot be married in a religious ceremony or by a minister of the church.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Hi XP,

As far as I can tell, your last post was to me. Could I ask you to address your posts to the person you are speaking to, please, even though you already know that a) I may not answer and B) someone else may answer anyway?

It being stupid o'clock here, I will focus on a point which seems to have confused you.

You mentioned God and I mentioned God. We are talking about the same God; that is, the one who created the universe and mankind. God is not a term synonymous with the term CHURCH. God was here before anything, and the Bible talks of church in two contexts - the Hebrews who were called out of Egypt, and, the church Jesus Christ promised to build.

What I was trying to communicate to you is the idea (you will discover for yourself if you do the math) that the knowledge of God on the earth, especially up until the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, was an open secret.

Micah 5:7 And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarriea not for man, nor waita for the sons of men.

Ezekiel 11:16 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come.

Isaiah 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the end of the earth. Acts 13:47,48

Without doubt, historically, marriage was a family affair, not a church affair.

Regarding the involvement of the 'State' in providing a legal framework in which to register marriages, in what way can the State have more power than God, seeing He ordains every authority on earth, for His own purposes, regardless of how well or how badly they run things on His behalf? Christians have no permission to flout civil law.

Daniel 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men.


I'm not sure if there was another question specifically to me, but please repeat it if it's not been answered yet? Thanks. I do realise you may not agree with, or understand why I chose the above verses, but they are a start towards understanding why, in the later years, despite Israel having the law, knowledge of God was still abroad in the earth.

Jeremiah 40:2 And the captain of the guard took Jeremiah, and said to him, The LORD thy God has pronounced this evil upon this place.

I didn't miss the point. Why would you say that when I didn't take your strawman. Don't present strawmen, that's not intellectually honest.

The point was the Church today claims that marriage is a GODLY RIGHT. However it's also been a legal right before people knew there was a GOD. In other words, the concept doesn't BELONG to the Church. It's a universal concept.

The Church has an aspect/parameter of marriage that pertains to those in the Church.

The legal authorities have to manage the concept for ALL PEOPLE.

It's not anyone trying to remove GOD from marriage, it's more like trying to keep the Church from forcing GOD INTO MARRIAGES of people outside the Church.

You wished to sidetrack with "God has been here from teh beginning..." Which has nothing to do with the point. It's a diversion. Something your, "I can never be wrong" self does often.

YES GOD has been here from the beginning, but marriage isn't ONLY GOD's. We don't force Xian views of marriage on muslims, on irish catholics, etc... They can bet married under the law and get protection.

The law is to protect the people.
God appointed those that make the law.
The employees of the govt at the time of Christ, even the sinful jobs, were told to do them and do them fairly.

The Church's gay marriage bashing, rabid, fervor, is Anti Christ. Not for it. It's bigotry, pure and simple. We've seen it before, and we are seeing it again.

 

[Elle]

Hi Xian,

You said:
"In fact if you considered yourself married, lived and committed to each other as married, were not holding a marriage license, don't you think that GOD would bless your marriage?"


Yes, I believe God would bless them if they came together under the marriage contract of God. Manmade governments should not have any say in marriage. God's government provided for divorce only if the woman was found to be unclean, women never had the option of putting away their men. God never required us to have a license or go before a preacher. Abraham sent his servant to find Isaac a wife from amongst his own people. Isaac sent Jacob to his mother's brother, Laban to find a wife. Jacob served 7 years for Rachel, only to get Leah on the night the marriage was consummated. As far as I am concerned, 2 people who claim a belief in God (not speaking of heathens) should not marry unless they have come together under the marriage contract of God. By this, I mean that the woman should realize she is under her husband and should never try to usurp his position of authority. Eve came out of Adam's side, not his head, where she should rule over him and not his feet, that he should stomp on her. They were both equal, but given different roles to fulfill.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Hi Xian,

You said:
"In fact if you considered yourself married, lived and committed to each other as married, were not holding a marriage license, don't you think that GOD would bless your marriage?"


Yes, I believe God would bless them if they came together under the marriage contract of God.

I agree. AND TY for taking honest consideration to the question....

Manmade g

overnments should not have any say in marriage.

I don't think a marriage under the Church and it's purpose, should be mixed with a marriage under the law. They are separate issues. Would you accept that?

God's government provided for divorce only if the woman was found to be unclean, women never had the option of putting away their men. God never required us to have a license or go before a preacher. Abraham sent his servant to find Isaac a wife from amongst his own people. Isaac sent Jacob to his mother's brother, Laban to find a wife. Jacob served 7 years for Rachel, only to get Leah on the night the marriage was consummated. As far as I am concerned, 2 people who claim a belief in God (not speaking of heathens) should not marry unless they have come together under the marriage contract of God. By this, I mean that the woman should realize she is under her husband and should never try to usurp his position of authority. Eve came out of Adam's side, not his head, where she should rule over him and not his feet, that he should stomp on her. They were both equal, but given different roles to fulfill.

Wouldn't you agree that this type of marriage is within the Church and not to be imposed on the NON Godly people in the world? The same as we don't push Baptism and communion off on them?

 

[Elle]

"I don't think a marriage under the Church and it's purpose, should be mixed with a marriage under the law. They are separate issues. Would you accept that?"

I might, but I need further clarification. Define for me what you mean by "a marriage under the Church" and "mixed with a marriage under the law". What law are you referencing, God's law or man's law?

"Wouldn't you agree that this type of marriage is within the Church and not to be imposed on the NON Godly people in the world? The same as we don't push Baptism and communion off on them?"

Yes, I do not believe anything should be forced upon those who do not have a belief. I do believe that we should preach the good news to outsiders but, if they refuse to hear us, we are to walk away, shake the dusts off our robes as a testimony against them. If they hear us, that means we have hopefully planted a seed and gained a future brother, but only God can water that seed. Non-Godly people marry for all the wrong reasons, whether that be money, looks, sex, whatever, they do not marry according to God's law. Godly people marry because they want to uphold God's Law. Sure, money, looks, sex might be part of the reason, but underneath all that is a much more spiritual reason for marrying and that is knowing the different roles God allotted to man and woman. Neither should try to usurp the God given role of the other. Since heathen marriages are not blessed in God's eyes, I do not really believe that putting away one's spouse in a heathen/heathen or a believer/heathen marriage (whether male or female) would be an issue, since God did not bring that marriage together.

BTW, when I said "Since heathen marriages are not blessed in God's eyes, I do not really believe that putting away one's spouse in a heathen/heathen or a believer/heathen marriage (whether male or female) would be an issue, since God did not bring that marriage together."

I wanted to reiterate that it is MY BELIEF, for the Bible, as far as I can remember, never says anything about a woman putting away a heathen husband. I know the men of Judah and Benjamin were called to put away their heathen wives upon return from Babylonian captivity as cited in Ezra 10:9-12, but nothing was mentioned about the women doing likewise. Why, I do not know.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Elle,

Marriage under the law, is a reference to the people who made this necessary, your pastor says, "by the powers invested in me..." . Those powers are the state law. That marriage is for protection under the law. The marriage in the church is just an 7nnecessary ceremony we do to present our marriage to the public. There is no marriage ceremony in the Bible, they made agreements, had a feast and dirtied the sheets and they were married. God knows if we are married or not and will bless who He will. But the biblical and traditional standards we hold as protestants are relevant ONLY to those in the church. To force those standards on anyone else is non biblical.

 

[Elle]

"Marriage under the law, is a reference to the people who made this necessary, your pastor says, "by the powers invested in me..." .Those powers are the state law. That marriage is for protection under the law. The marriage in the church is just an 7nnecessary ceremony we do to present our marriage to the public."

True, and I might add any church that has a 501c3 tax exempt status are under control of what the government defines as marriage, not what God defines as marriage. So........ if the government declares same sex marriage legal, then those churches must now be obliged to marry same sex couples or lose their tax exempt status.

"There is no marriage ceremony in the Bible, they made agreements, had a feast and dirtied the sheets and they were married."

Correct and I will add this to your comment. A wife (virgin) was bought for 50 shekels of silver (or time served in Jacob's case), whereas a concubine was given to the husband by the wife, thus becoming a secondary wife.

"God knows if we are married or not and will bless who He will."

Again correct, God knows if it is a lawful, not legitimate, marriage based on His definition of marriage.

"But the biblical and traditional standards we hold as protestants are relevant ONLY to those in the church. To force those standards on anyone else is non biblical."

Again yes, you cannot force those standards on anyone, even those who come under the covenant cannot be forced to comply. Depending on what law he/she/they broke and whether 2 or more witnesses witnessed the offense, he/she/they were either 1)put to death, 2)needed to fulfill the law they broke or 3)be cut off from Israel (if law broke did not require death penalty) if not repentant.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Wow, you sorta killed this chapter with all the agreeing.

If the govt declares it legal it won't force the govt to marry them. Separation of chch n state.... same as a church can refuse people now. Catholics don't have to marry non catholics, but they can, just minus some catholic blessings....

 

[Elle]

"Wow, you sorta killed this chapter with all the agreeing."

Sorry, but the Bible confirms it. :)


"If the govt declares it legal it won't force the govt to marry them. Separation of chch n state.... same as a church can refuse people now."

No, the government could force the "churches" to marry same sex couples. In reality, as long as the church accepts the governments tax exempt status, there is no separation of church and state because ultimately the government controls the church. It's all smoke and mirrors. A church that does not accept the tax exempt status is free to determine who they will and will not marry. They did not sell themselves to the beastly political system. The only reason they can refuse them now is because there is no law of the land that exists saying same sex couples can marry. The few states that do permit it, tend to be more liberal in their beliefs, so for them it is not an issue.

"Catholics don't have to marry non catholics, but they can, just minus some catholic blessings.... "
Your comparing apples to oranges in this case. The government could care less whether a Catholic marries a non- Catholic, because they have not made a law in regards to that, but the government is pushing to legalize same sex marriage. If and when that happens, then you will see it enforced. A true church will not bow.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Ok, then that's simple.

First that would be 8 generations in the future.
Second the church can marry but nit bless them.
Third if that became the law, God ordained it when appointing the government.

I enjoy your thinking....

 

[Elle]

"Ok, then that's simple."
I tried my best!

"First that would be 8 generations in the future."
Not sure what you mean by this, are you saying that 8 generations from now same sex marriage will be allowed?

"Second the church can marry but nit bless them."
Any church that cares more about their 501c3 status than God's Law is essentially giving them their carnal blessing and compromising with the government. God will spew them out of His mouth.

"Third if that became the law, God ordained it when appointing the government."
God may appoint the government, but He would never ordain same sex marriage, He would be in violation of His own Law. Just because He appointed the government, doesn't mean they will follow God's Laws. King Saul didn't, King Ahab, didn't just to name 2. God's people must follow God's Law. If God's people choose to violate God's Law, not just the same sex marriage aspect, then God will bring upon us the curses of Deuteronomy 28 starting at verse 15. If they choose to uphold God's Law, then we will be blessed as a nation. God's people were to be a light to the rest of the nations, but that light is very, very, very, dim. We do not stand up for God's ways, but rather compromise with the enemy. I use the term "WE" because we have all approved of things that were not in alignment with God.

"I enjoy your thinking.... ""
Thank you.

• 
• [background=rgb(222, 222, 222)]0[/background]

• Quote
• MultiQuote

 

[dragonfly]

Hi XP,

I would like a second shot at communicating my point, please.

It's not anyone trying to remove GOD from marriage, it's more like trying to keep the Church from forcing GOD INTO MARRIAGES of people outside the Church.

Again (as in other threads) you seem to be pre-occupied by what churches are doing. This may be an American issue... I'm not sure... but please try to think outside the box for the rest of this post...?

In the first gospel, Jesus repeats what God had said Gen 2:24 when He made Adam and Eve:

Matthew 19:5 '... For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This statement applies to every exclusively one man-one woman union. God Himself joins them.

Now... there may be many variables - colour, religion, cultural practices, sins - which interfere with the spiritual dynamics in a marriage, but the basic principle that God blesses the joining of a man and a woman in commitment to one another is the same across the world.



In other words, God's presence at the joining of a man and a woman happens regardless of what the couple are thinking or not thinking about Him.

Likewise, there are certain types of union God cannot and never will bless, but His laws will still have an effect on the participants.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Again (as in other threads) you seem to be pre-occupied by what churches are doing. This may be an American issue... I'm not sure... but please try to think outside the box for the rest of this post...?

In the first gospel, Jesus repeats what God had said Gen 2:24 when He made Adam and Eve:

Matthew 19:5 '... For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This statement applies to every exclusively one man-one woman union. God Himself joins them.

Now... there may be many variables - colour, religion, cultural practices, sins - which interfere with the spiritual dynamics in a marriage, but the basic principle that God blesses the joining of a man and a woman in commitment to one another is the same across the world.

In other words, God's presence at the joining of a man and a woman happens regardless of what the couple are thinking or not thinking about Him.

Likewise, there are certain types of union God cannot and never will bless, but His laws will still have an effect on the participants.

The Church is a concern for all of us. But the gay marriage thing is a big deal in the states.

I want you to read slowly here.

I agree that God intends the marriage to be between man and woman.

Are we done with that?

We are discussing the duplicitous aspect of marriage that under the Church it has a meaning.

Under the law, which is made for all people, not just church people, it has a different application.
Just as the Tax man and the Soldier were told, even though their jobs were sinful in the eyes of the believers of the time, to continue to do their job for the government, just do it fairly, so too does the government have a job to do it fairly.

The Gay marriage thing, has no biblical basis to be halted by the Church. Except in the same sense that Adolph Hitler used the Bible to take down Jews. It's not near the atrocity, but the primary principle is the same.

Short version.

Marriage in God's eyes, in the Church,
And
Marriage in the laws eyes...

Need not meet, and should not meet, same as the jews didn't impose their laws on the general populace.

If you can't admit to the difference in the legal need for marriage, and the religious marriage, then I can't even convince you grass is green we should change the conversation.

 

[Elle]

"Just as the Tax man and the Soldier were told, even though their jobs were sinful in the eyes of the believers of the time, to continue to do their job for the government, just do it fairly, so too does the government have a job to do it fairly."

I'm saving this to my folder of quotes, goes very well with Daniel 6:10.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

"Ok, then that's simple."
I tried my best!

"First that would be 8 generations in the future."
Not sure what you mean by this, are you saying that 8 generations from now same sex marriage will be allowed?

I'm saying it takes time for the lifestyle of the country to change. Slaves were freed about 8 generations ago. Women's right to vote about 6 generations ago, interracial marriage 2 generations ago. All of those were things that the church was against and screamed it would bring the world to an end. It didn't happen. IF the gay marriage thing passed and it matured into an appeal to make pastors marry them, against their religion, it would be many many generations into the future. About 8 is my guess, but it's of course a guess.

"Second the church can marry but nit bless them."
Any church that cares more about their 501c3 status than God's Law is essentially giving them their carnal blessing and compromising with the government. God will spew them out of His mouth.

I don't think that case, you are 501c3 so you must marry and bless gay people is even on the realms of possible court cases to win. AND, I don't know of any Gay couple that would get married who would care to make it one. They are nearly all leave them alone make them leave us alone. HOWEVER, in answer to the way the far right treats them, in reaction they have a far left that even the GLBT community cringe at.

"Third if that became the law, God ordained it when appointing the government."
God may appoint the government, but He would never ordain same sex marriage,

He ordained the killing of His son and the enslavement of His people, as well as Genocide. Providing legal rights and a fair government for everyone, not just xians is something the NT says directly is to be done. So I have to disagree. You mistake the legal aspects of marriage, to having a connection with the Religious ones. God could put the government to making gay marriage legal to protect them from His Church's Zealots.

He would be in violation of His own Law.

No, he wouldn't. The law never applied to gentiles. Not once. It would, in this case, apply to us within the Church. But not to the government. Paul said, "it's not my job to judge those outside the Church", and James ruled not to make the gentiles keep any but a portion of the law.

Just because He appointed the government, doesn't mean they will follow God's Laws. King Saul didn't, King Ahab, didn't just to name 2. God's people must follow God's Law.

Sometimes not following GOD's Laws are what the government is supposed to do for His will to be done. Why would we interfere? Would you have stopped Judas from turning Christ in? How about Pharaoh? Either one, seemed the right move at the time, but would have been wrong. God appoints the Govt. I trust Him.

If God's people choose to violate God's Law, not just the same sex marriage aspect, then God will bring upon us the curses of Deuteronomy 28 starting at verse 15. If they choose to uphold God's Law, then we will be blessed as a nation. God's people were to be a light to the rest of the nations, but that light is very, very, very, dim. We do not stand up for God's ways, but rather compromise with the enemy. I use the term "WE" because we have all approved of things that were not in alignment with God.

"I enjoy your thinking.... ""

Thank you.

I think I've shown my oddness here... :)

 

[dragonfly]

Hi XP,
Thanks for your patient reply.

If you can't admit to the difference in the legal need for marriage, and the religious marriage, then I can't even convince you grass is green we should change the conversation.

I thought I agreed with the general need for there to be a legal acknowledgement of marriages as well as the God-ordained one, in an earlier post in this thread. But at that time, I didn't know you were using the separation of the two aspects of marriage, to justify 'gay marriage'. Why does it have to be called a 'marriage' when the very definition of the word 'marriage' necessitates a male and a female.

Why not a Civil Partnership status which has been invested with all the safeguards of a legal 'marriage'? If it's the legal aspect you are wishing to make available to them, on what basis have they a right to hijack God's word when clearly they have no interest in any other word He's said?

To me, that's just hypocrisy on their part, and it's fair game to be resisted strenuously.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

"Just as the Tax man and the Soldier were told, even though their jobs were sinful in the eyes of the believers of the time, to continue to do their job for the government, just do it fairly, so too does the government have a job to do it fairly."

I'm saving this to my folder of quotes, goes very well with Daniel 6:10.

I hope it's in a positive way and not to refer to me as the dummy that actually believed........

Hi XP,
Thanks for your patient reply.

I thought I agreed with the general need for there to be a legal acknowledgement of marriages as well as the God-ordained one, in an earlier post in this thread.

I did too. But apparently that was in word only as the concept keeps getting confoozled back into the mix. I keep seeing XIAN law factored into the Legal law of the land. That's like putting the deer with the steers just because they both have horns.

But at that time, I didn't know you were using the separation of the two aspects of marriage, to justify 'gay marriage'.

So, you admit you are bigot and you will change your own comments to accost the glbt community. That's fair. The most honest you've been so far. And I'm not justifying Gay Marriage. I'm defending scripture. The point of the question here was solely to draw a line between the governments right to define marriage, and the Church's right to their claim to what a marriage is. They serve different purposes, thus the same word is duplicitous, it's applied differently. You don't legislate baptism. DOn't legislate marriage. You don't legislate liars, else half of you would be in jail. Why legislate marriage.

Your views have been upheld in the Church for over a hundred years. It's lost each time, and future generations of the church look back at them in shame. That's exactly what an infant 25 years from now will think of this if they dig this conversation up.

Why does it have to be called a 'marriage' when the very definition of the word 'marriage' necessitates a male and a female.

They tried for legal rights to start with. You folks on the freakedoutfarright wouldn't hear of that happening. Had they shut up this issue over marriage wouldn't be happening now. Ironic now. They battle for the term Marriage because in the states it would change their goals. Rather than have to have every state make a law for some sorta union.... if you get married in Georgia, California will honor that marriage legally. So getting the term marriage meant they could conquer the bigots faster. They only needed to win ONE state not 50. So they want the term marriage for legal reasons that would have been avoided had the far right not cried when they tried. Had the Church done the right thing, this wouldn't be an issue today.

Why not a Civil Partnership status which has been invested with all the safeguards of a legal 'marriage'? If it's the legal aspect you are wishing to make available to them, on what basis have they a right to hijack God's word when clearly they have no interest in any other word He's said?

See bove. onTHEM. on THOSE people? You people across the pond are all a "YOU PEOPLE" sorta people aren't you?

To me, that's just hypocrisy on their part, and it's fair game to be resisted strenuously.

I grant you it's your right to make an ass out of yourself anyway you see fit. But you have ZERO biblical grounds to attack them. In fact you are anti Christ if you work at deying them.

 

[Elle]

"I'm saying it takes time for the lifestyle of the country to change. Slaves were freed about 8 generations ago. Women's right to vote about 6 generations ago, interracial marriage 2 generations ago.

I see what you're saying.


"All of those were things that the church was against and screamed it would bring the world to an end. It didn't happen."

Eventually it will bring God's wrath.


"IF the gay marriage thing passed and it matured into an appeal to make pastors marry them, against their religion, it would be many many generations into the future. About 8 is my guess, but it's of course a guess."

I feel it could happen much sooner.


"I don't think that case, you are 501c3 so you must marry and bless gay people is even on the realms of possible court cases to win. AND, I don't know of any Gay couple that would get married who would care to make it one. They are nearly all leave them alone make them leave us alone. HOWEVER, in answer to the way the far right treats them, in reaction they have a far left that even the GLBT community cringe at."

I stand like an oak on this issue.


"He ordained the killing of His son and the enslavement of His people, as well as Genocide. Providing legal rights and a fair government for everyone, not just xians is something the NT says directly is to be done. So I have to disagree. You mistake the legal aspects of marriage, to having a connection with the Religious ones."

Yeshua's sacrifice was for the benefit of man and Yeshua agreed to do His Father's will, he was not forced. Enslavement of His people was also for their benefit to grow as a nation. Genocide was to clear the land that Satan's spiritual seed was squatting on. I'm not sure how you see gay marriage as as being a legal right, that's unscriptural. Here is how I see it. Man has free will to choose, if someone wants to get an abortion or marry a person of the same sex, they are free to do so. I stand against it, but will not override their free will. Manmade governments have no right forcing these issues by legalizing them on believers. Why, for instance, should my tax money go to pay for someone's abortion? I support one's free will choice to have one, but do not indirectly involve me by using my hard earned money to fix your mistake. I'm am not required to give 25% of my income to support abled-bodied persons who refuse to work. God is not fair, never was. God took the talent from the worthless servant and gave it to the one who produced much, God hates socialism. Man can put all the laws he wants into place that are in opposition to God, but God's Law stands and it will be that very Law that they are judged from.


"God could put the government to making gay marriage legal to protect them from His Church's Zealots."

No, what God put in place to protect people from "Church Zealot's" was the need for 2 or 3 witnesses to witness the act. Then they were brought before the judges and if the accusation was true they were punished according to the Law. No one has the right to execute judgement without witnesses.


"No, he wouldn't. The law never applied to gentiles. Not once. It would, in this case, apply to us within the Church. But not to the government. Paul said, "it's not my job to judge those outside the Church", and James ruled not to make the gentiles keep any but a portion of the law."

If you are saying God approves of same sex marriage, you are mistaken. He would be violating His own Law. Actually the Law does apply to gentiles IF they decided to live under the tents of Israel. Heathens and Gentiles are not the same thing. Israel was to treat them as one of their own as can be seen in Leviticus 19:34: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." This word stranger in Hebrew is "ger" and below are the list of things that pertained to a ger:
1)Could only keep Passover if circumcised,
2)If found eating unleavened bread during Feast of Unleavened Bread they would be cut off from Israel
3)Places of refuge set up for them as well as Israelites.
4)Israelites to treat them as one born in the land.
5)They were to receive an inheritance of land among the tribe that they were sojourning with.
6) Anything that died of itself was given to the ger.

Then you have the "nekars", a different kind of stranger, they are outsiders/heathens, these are the list of things that pertained to them:

1)Could be bought for bondservants.
2)Israelites could not be sold to them.
3)Animals that died of themselves were SOLD, not given to nekars as they were to gers.
4)Israelites prohibted from worshipping the nekars gods.
5)Israelite to remain separated from nekars.
6)Nekars uncircumcised in heart and flesh could not enter into the sanctuary.
7)Nekars could not partake of the Passover.
8)Nekars bought with money who were living with an Israelite were to be circumcised at 8 days old.
9)Israelites could charge usury to a nekar, but not to their fellow Israelite.
10)Israelites avoided turning into any cities occupied by nekars.
11)Israelites were not to take nekars as husband and wives.

Do you see the difference? Gers are acceptable to God, but nekars are not. The nekars need to become gers. They are not treated equally.


"Sometimes not following GOD's Laws are what the government is supposed to do for His will to be done. Why would we interfere? Would you have stopped Judas from turning Christ in? How about Pharaoh? Either one, seemed the right move at the time, but would have been wrong. God appoints the Govt. I trust Him. "

Not that they are "supposed to do", but because they "choose to do", that God's plan will come to its fulfillment. No, I would not have stopped Judas, to do so would be to override his free will. I would have tried to set him on the right path had I known. Even the apostles did not understand what Judas set out to do. Look what Yeshua said to Peter when he tried to override Yeshua's free will. I have no intention of stopping anybody from doing what they feel is right, but if one claims to believe in God, I will try to reason with them and hopefully they will hear my counsel. I will always stand by God's Law before I stand by man's law if it is not in accordance with God's ways. Here is an example of what I mean from an article I have saved: "After the enemies of Daniel could find no fault in Daniel concerning the laws of the land, they would condemn him another way. The only hope they had to see him condemned was to have a law instituted that went against the law of his God. Therefore, they made a law that struck at the heart of Daniel's relationship with his God: his daily prayer life. We must notice that the law that was made was in opposition to the law of God. It was that anyone who petitioned any god, except the king for thirty days would be killed. This was a carefully orchestrated plan to bring Daniel into condemnation in regard to the law of the land. Daniel was forced to either obey God or the law of the land. We see here that the law goes against a law of God, which calls for daily morning and evening prayer as specified in Numbers 28:3."


"I think I've shown my oddness here... :)"

Food for thought: 1John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Two thoughts but I'll have to come back to this....

God doing what you would call evil things, are also for His plan. Where you say His wrath will come to us for allowing it to happen, has no biblical foundation at all.

And 1 john 1:8 is the most abused verse in the bible. Especially since a few vss earlier JOhn said him and others no longer sinned. :) That's an entirely different thread.

You've managed to arrive peacefully to where disagree and to what extent we sorta agree. And the places we don't agree we can still discuss.

You rock. :)

In a couple of hours I"ll hit this appropriately.