Duplicity of Marriage to a Xian.

[Xian Pugilist]

Anyone who has been to a wedding has heard, "by the power invested in me by the state of/county of etc...." before the pronouncement that they are man and wife.

By that alone, I'd argue that the Church has acknowledged for longer than I've lived that the right to marry belonged to the government, that it was a legal arrangement.

HOWEVER, that doesn't change, nor does it affect that if you are married and a believer that GOD will bless your marriage.

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?

So, why is it, the Church today, tries to lay claim to a word, "marriage' that has been a concept people honored long before the Bible had it's first words written? And was a concept in countries that never heard of the God of Abraham, much less Jesus, and the Church of Christ's.

Why can't the Church be content to hold ceremonies before God for their weddings, let God continue to bless them, without trying to legislate the Church's faith on everyone?

Wouldn't that be the same as passing a law that everyone must be baptised?

This is a conversation over the relation of the CHURCH'S role in a marriage, vs the Governments.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

I always thought that marriage was sex, according to scripture. So moreso it's the government's right who should or shouldn't have sex under legal context. The ceremony I thought just signified this union. That's why it's so important to make union with only one other person. So ya, basically I'm saying I agree with you.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

They will shun you.

 

[us2are1]

Anyone who has been to a wedding has heard, "by the power invested in me by the state of/county of etc...." before the pronouncement that they are man and wife.

By that alone, I'd argue that the Church has acknowledged for longer than I've lived that the right to marry belonged to the government, that it was a legal arrangement.

HOWEVER, that doesn't change, nor does it affect that if you are married and a believer that GOD will bless your marriage.

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?

So, why is it, the Church today, tries to lay claim to a word, "marriage' that has been a concept people honored long before the Bible had it's first words written? And was a concept in countries that never heard of the God of Abraham, much less Jesus, and the Church of Christ's.

Why can't the Church be content to hold ceremonies before God for their weddings, let God continue to bless them, without trying to legislate the Church's faith on everyone?

Wouldn't that be the same as passing a law that everyone must be baptised?

This is a conversation over the relation of the CHURCH'S role in a marriage, vs the Governments.

You have all of that kinda mixed up. There was no one before God and Adam and Eve. God instituted marriage. This is from the oldest writing known to man.

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Really? Seems I said there was marriage before the bible was written, not before God......

Doesn't change the fact that what the govt calls a marriage is determined by them, not the church.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

So what you're saying is that sex and union existed before the law, so it can't be held accountable to the law on one level, but a deeper obedience to God, moreso on a level of conscience. This law that was driven into our nature, which sucks in a way since our nature was screwed by sin. But since the law also covered sex and sexual sin, there are methods of union now ordained by God to keep us from sinning against our conscience on a deeper level than the law. I consider this deeper law the "Character of God" law. Meaning anything we do outside His character (God's character) is sinful, since we were created in His image. We don't have an excuse to act outside of His character. So we sin even against our own character when we sin sexually, which it refers to in the NT. We sin against ourselves and the image of God we were created in. It's making sense to me. Anyone else?

 

[Hepzibah]

Xian

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?

No. I believe it is God`s will that a legal contract is made to protect the woman and children before sex takes place. The woman at the well had gone against His will - maybe she did not want to go through the public humiliation of divorce again (it was the man who had the power to divorce in those days I believe or maybe they all died). I am also guessing that a woman who left her husband was a social outcast?

 

[dragonfly]

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?

I believe this is possible, if God was invited to bless the union before it took place, or, He was brought into the union as soon as the couple understood their need of His blessing, but I do not agree with what I suspect your implication is, that THEREFORE there should be no public acknowledgement of that union in the form of a ritual in which marriage vows are exchanged in the presense of witnesses, for the purpose of establishing the commitment the two people have made to each other in the eyes of their local community/friendship group.

This is as much to warn the other men off the woman in the union, and to warn the other women off the man in the union, as it is to obtain the blessing and co-operation of the community, and, a certificate of marriage, which confers benefits on both parties, legally, till after the death of one of them. It may be easy as a young person to feel these are insignificant, but the advantages at bereavement or divorce cannot be understated.

It is not so many years since a the use of the term 'illegitimate' began to fall into disuse because the children of unwed couples were now legally deemed to be their legal offspring and heirs. Until that time, an illegitimate child had a second-rate social and legal status, and was not entitled to an inheritance except the Will was made watertight in their favour. There were many social disadvantages to having been born 'illegitimate'.

 

[Groundzero]

I always thought that marriage was sex, according to scripture. So moreso it's the government's right who should or shouldn't have sex under legal context. The ceremony I thought just signified this union. That's why it's so important to make union with only one other person. So ya, basically I'm saying I agree with you.

Marriage isn't sex. Sex is part of marriage, but not actually all of marriage itself, just like the seed of an apple is part of the apple, but not the whole apple.

Scripture doesn't back this. It does state, however, that sexual relations join a man and woman together and thus in God's eyes, are married, whether they acknowledge it or not.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

Good point, Ground Zero, I don't think I've anything to add.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

So what you're saying is that sex and union existed before the law, so it can't be held accountable to the law on one level, but a deeper obedience to God, moreso on a level of conscience. This law that was driven into our nature, which sucks in a way since our nature was screwed by sin. But since the law also covered sex and sexual sin, there are methods of union now ordained by God to keep us from sinning against our conscience on a deeper level than the law. I consider this deeper law the "Character of God" law. Meaning anything we do outside His character (God's character) is sinful, since we were created in His image. We don't have an excuse to act outside of His character. So we sin even against our own character when we sin sexually, which it refers to in the NT. We sin against ourselves and the image of God we were created in. It's making sense to me. Anyone else?

That's a good assessment of one side of the argument, the sinfulness of it. But we let sinful people get married all the time, right? So, why would the CHURCH, who marries people UNDER THE LAW OF THE LAND, THE U.S. of A., try to posture itself as if IT was the definer of the concept. Before Moses' books were written, people in places that never heard of the God of Abraham were getting married.

For the Church to claim it has a right to the countries legal definition of marriage seems silly to me. Before the Church had a written concept of the word, people were marrying. It was always a legal contract between people.

God blessing a marriage or not will occur if it's legal in the country or not. That's His business and His claim. And don't forget HE appoints the government to take care of the people, EVEN HIS ENEMIES!

It's a shame His Church doesn't do the same. I'm just sayin'

NO no no no I'm not advocating no ceremony. I'm merely defining what a marriage is. The post of mine above this will take you closer to why. :)

The fact you could admit what you did below, is very uniquely unusual on these forums. :) It's a testament to your character.

I believe this is possible, if God was invited to bless the union before it took place, or, He was brought into the union as soon as the couple understood their need of His blessing, but I do not agree with what I suspect your implication is, that THEREFORE there should be no public acknowledgement of that union in the form of a ritual in which marriage vows are exchanged in the presense of witnesses, for the purpose of establishing the commitment the two people have made to each other in the eyes of their local community/friendship group.

This is as much to warn the other men off the woman in the union, and to warn the other women off the man in the union, as it is to obtain the blessing and co-operation of the community, and, a certificate of marriage, which confers benefits on both parties, legally, till after the death of one of them. It may be easy as a young person to feel these are insignificant, but the advantages at bereavement or divorce cannot be understated.

It is not so many years since a the use of the term 'illegitimate' began to fall into disuse because the children of unwed couples were now legally deemed to be their legal offspring and heirs. Until that time, an illegitimate child had a second-rate social and legal status, and was not entitled to an inheritance except the Will was made watertight in their favour. There were many social disadvantages to having been born 'illegitimate'.

I think I"m a step past this, but maybe not. I'll say what I'm about to say and you correct me, please?

Marriage existed among people long before some of those people knew of God. How do you explain that if it is ONLY possible with God?

See there are two different marriages here.

There is the marriage under the laws of the lands, the agreement between two families.

And there is the marriage union with God, where they are made one flesh before God and live before God. That's two different events.

When the Church gets all involved with marriage laws they are doing the same thing as if they were trying to force a law that everyone be baptised before they can get their IRS refund. They are two independent cultures/laws/rules etc...

Xian

No. I believe it is God`s will that a legal contract is made to protect the woman and children before sex takes place. The woman at the well had gone against His will - maybe she did not want to go through the public humiliation of divorce again (it was the man who had the power to divorce in those days I believe or maybe they all died). I am also guessing that a woman who left her husband was a social outcast?

Forgive me, other than pedantics what's the difference?

If you are ONE FLESH in God's Eyes, can you somehow be considered not married? That's what the word means, joined together.

Marriage isn't sex. Sex is part of marriage, but not actually all of marriage itself, just like the seed of an apple is part of the apple, but not the whole apple.

Scripture doesn't back this. It does state, however, that sexual relations join a man and woman together and thus in God's eyes, are married, whether they acknowledge it or not.

 

[Hepzibah]

XP

If you are ONE FLESH in God's Eyes, can you somehow be considered not married? That's what the word means, joined together.

Yes but that is one side of it, the other is a public declaration of lifelong commitment. A promise is required as well as the physical union. Otherwise it is half done.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

XP



Yes but that is one side of it, the other is a public declaration of lifelong commitment. A promise is required as well as the physical union. Otherwise it is half done.

Ok, I'm with you.

So, I have a meeting with friends and family and my wife. I tell them we are a wife and husband. We profess our promises to each other. We have witnesses. We don't get married under the state of TX law.

I'm married before God.

If I go through the law, that is fine too.

IF you say the law is required, then you admit the law has control over the marriage. In this case the law being the judge in Texas. If a pastor marries me, which is accepted as legal in the state of TEXAS because the state of TEXAS says it is, not because of the Bible, then I have to admit, the rights to define the marriage and the terms of what is acceptable belongs to the State of Texas. Not the Church. OF COURSE the Church can choose not to exercise their rights to marry someone at their discretion.

But the Marriage in the faith, and the marriage in the law are not the same marriage and shouldn't be judged as such.

 

[Hepzibah]

If the partnership breaks down, and there has been no legal contract, then there is no recourse in the division of property for the one who is left holding the offspring and for this reason, I think that believing couples should make it legal, at least for their children. I don`t think that a believing couple together without the legal side are showing a good example to the younger generation who have much less commitment to a life long partnership. It just gives the wrong message. Its still a marriage agreed but an area of responsibility has been dodged.

ps I will get back to the other discussion once I remember where it is - failing memory I`m afraid and not a reflection on my interest :)

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Hehehehehe to other convo.

I agree EVERYONE should get married for their protection if they are in a relationship. Not only in the case of a divorce but also in the case of a death.

So, why does the CHurch try to define marriage as specifically a Xian thing?

If the partnership breaks down, and there has been no legal contract, then there is no recourse in the division of property for the one who is left holding the offspring and for this reason, I think that believing couples should make it legal, at least for their children. I don`t think that a believing couple together without the legal side are showing a good example to the younger generation who have much less commitment to a life long partnership. It just gives the wrong message. Its still a marriage agreed but an area of responsibility has been dodged.

ps I will get back to the other discussion once I remember where it is - failing memory I`m afraid and not a reflection on my interest :)

 

[martinlawrencescott]

I think I agree with what you're saying. I'll reference a verse in Romans 5, which states before the law, people were held accountable to a command, who. That's an interesting way to put it. They didn't have a command per say but the command is the "who". I believe this means we are held accountable to the character of God even before we are held accountable to the law he gave (However the law was made even according to His character.) However it's a state of being law vs. a state of works law. This is seen as early as "He made them in His image, male and female He made them".


"But the Marriage in the faith, and the marriage in the law are not the same marriage and shouldn't be judged as such." <--- That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

I'm really uncomfortable and not experienced with people agreeing. :| :unsure:

 

[martinlawrencescott]

Ya, it takes a while. I can't say I'm really used to it either. You kinda have to get used to stating why you agree and adding whatever additional info you think is important to clarify the agreement. It's a new topic of discussion on this board; agreement.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi XP,

Marriage existed among people long before some of those people knew of God. How do you explain that if it is ONLY possible with God?

If you go back to Adam in scripture, and take a long piece of paper with you to do an accurate calculation of the lengths of lives and how they overlapped, you may be surprised at what you find. The idea that there have been people who didn't know of God, is unlikely.


The other thing you're forgetting (perhaps?) is that although the people might not be very conscious of God, He sees them all.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Are you really that far from understanding the argument? or are you just trying to not have to budge on yours.

The term MARRIAGE would exist in a people that has no GOD. It is not something the CHURCH OWNS.

The concept of MARRIAGE existed before the Bible was written.
Meaning YOUR biblical concept of marriage was limited to a group of people and there were groups that were married but had not a clue of this God and His desires.

The Church invaded those cultures later.
And tries to dictate what a marriage can be? How hypocritical. Why would you embrace such an action?

WHY WOULD YOU LEGISLATE IT?

Both actions are anti christ. Why do you push for that action?

The CHURCH recognizes a type of union.
The law legislates for legal purposes what a marriage is.

Whatever the law legislates it's having to protect more than Xians.
AND WHATEVER IT LEGISLATES WILL NOT AFFECT WHAT GOD RECOGNIZES.

If you don't legislate circumcision and baptism, why would you legislate marriage?

The word has two applications. Legal and Religious. Same common definition, but different applications.

I have a stake in microsoft.
I have a stake in my tent.

Stake is the same word.
Marriage is the same word.

One is for legal reasons ?microsoft/government?
One is for applicable reasons-- the tent, and the faith.

You can't apply the same laws to the stake in the tent as the stake in microsoft. It's as idiotic as the church legislating it's idea of marriage is.

God said the govt was appointed by Him.
We are to honor the government.

Two of the sinningest jobs in the land when Christ walked were tax collecting and soldiering. But believers from both were told to do their job justly and fairly. Why would the church try to interfere with that?

Hi XP,



If you go back to Adam in scripture, and take a long piece of paper with you to do an accurate calculation of the lengths of lives and how they overlapped, you may be surprised at what you find. The idea that there have been people who didn't know of God, is unlikely.

Perhaps, what would be beneficial in a conversation with you dragonfly is if you would deal with the arguments presented, before you just claim you have better arguments. Then it would be more of a conversation and not a lecture. And even YOU may learn something, if you listen and think on it before responding.



The other thing you're forgetting (perhaps?) is that although the people might not be very conscious of God, He sees them all.