Nessa wrote:Really it comes down to the consumation...are you married after you are pronounced man and wife or after you have intercourse?
I say it's not a real marriage until the wife makes her husband a sammich. That's the REAL consummation of a marriage. That's the beginning of lifelong wedded bliss!
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Rick: I say it's not a real marriage until the wife makes her husband a sammich. That's the REAL consummation of a marriage. That's the beginning of lifelong wedded bliss! :
Well, Rick, I guess every man has to have his priorities? Reminds me of the old Rodney Dangerfield joke: "At this point in my life, food is a much bigger priority for me than sex is. In fact, it's SO important to me that I had a mirror mounted on the ceiling above my kitchen table!" Rick's probably got a mirror above his kitchen table, too. Only difference is, Rick's food obsession probably included a legal clause he had inserted into his marriage vows.
This made me think I should have asked on the thread about the clerk who refused to issue licences for same-sex marriages, what makes marriages between non-Christians immoral? To my thinking at least they're doing the right thing and not just living together (which most people would do or keep on doing, if they weren't allowed to marry).
Nicki wrote:what makes marriages between non-Christians immoral?
There is nothing immoral about marriage between non-Christians. A union between two man and two women isn't a marriage, whether the persons involved are Christians or not. Most people don't realize the real meaning of marriage:
Nicki wrote:This made me think I should have asked on the thread about the clerk who refused to issue licences for same-sex marriages, what makes marriages between non-Christians immoral? To my thinking at least they're doing the right thing and not just living together (which most people would do or keep on doing, if they weren't allowed to marry).
To do what is moral is to do what is right. To do what is right is to do what is natural for humans, ( as intended by nature).
To do what is right is what is in the best interest for the human species.
Same-sex marriage is NOT in the best interest of the human species nor is it natural for the human species.
As such, same-sex marriages are not moral.
Nicki wrote:This made me think I should have asked on the thread about the clerk who refused to issue licences for same-sex marriages, what makes marriages between non-Christians immoral? To my thinking at least they're doing the right thing and not just living together (which most people would do or keep on doing, if they weren't allowed to marry).
To do what is moral is to do what is right. To do what is right is to do what is natural for humans, ( as intended by nature).
To do what is right is what is in the best interest for the human species.
Same-sex marriage is NOT in the best interest of the human species nor is it natural for the human species.
As such, same-sex marriages are not moral.
I didn't mean same-sex marriages - it's just that marriages between non-Christians were given as another example of immoral unions for which (as a Christian) issuing a licence would be questionable. I should bring up the thread itself but I'm pretty sure something like that was mentioned once or twice. I went 'huh?' but didn't think to question it at the time.
There is nothing immoral about marriage between non-Christians. A union between two man and two women isn't a marriage, whether the persons involved are Christians or not. Most people don't realize the real meaning of marriage:
http://blog.joshuaagan.com/2015/07/09/m ... may-think/
Faith is acting like it is so even while it is not so in order to make it so because God said it is so.
I think that link is way too simplistic and thin as opposed to a more comprehensive look at the important aspects of marriage - it's more than a mirroring picture of Jesus and the Church, although that certainly is an important and central aspect.
"To do what is right is to do is to do what is natural to humans (as nature intended)."
What is natural to HUMANS is to do whatever suits their sinful fancy of the moment. Sinful actions often FEEL great and absolutely natural to a person.
"As nature intended" - do this mean as God intended? The natural world, by itself only functions as designed. Perhaps what was meant?
Getting back to Christianity and divorce we know that God does not desire for this to be the outcome of any marriage especially marriages that are entered into with faith and knowledge of the spiritual union that exists between a man and woman.
In saying that whilst we can uphold this as an important Christian value which it is, any decision that is made by an individual is between themselves and God.
I personally do not and would not question a person's faith or commitment to moral Christian values dependent on their marriage status.
I get that it seems way too easy in today's society when things aren't working out to grab a drive through divorce and start over sometimes without taking real consideration of perhaps the former spouse, family, children, God.
But we just don't know what goes on behind closed doors. They may be circumstances that people are not willing to share and they really are not obliged to do so. As Christians we make decisions, to the best of our ability and try to balance family life, marriage and faith.
Sometimes there is an unbalance that is so great that difficult decisions must be made.
There are marriages that can hurt our family and can hurt our faith.
No one should be obliged to stay in a marriage when the damage out ways the not the personal gain but rather the spiritual gain.
Many people enter into marriages under the optimistic view that their partner is the person that they present themselves to be. But in life and in Christian circles this is not always the case.
There have been enough cases that we are well aware of where 'christians' have been abusers, sexually, verbally and emotionally.
Nobody should feel trapped under religious obligation to maintain and sustain a marriage that is not healthy.
As parents we have a duty to protect our children. That duty outways in my opinion any duty of marriage. If children are in any danger in whatever way that presents from the extreme like sexual abuse and physical violence to the more subtle but just as damaging like emotional abuse of either the child or of a parent who is over time demoralised, controlled, and left feeling helpless and/or inferior then that impact weighs heavily on the children.
So as the church and by church I don't mean the building or any denomination but as the body of Christ, the believers we have a duty to uphold marriage but never so dogmatically that we shun, turn away or silently ostracised those whose marriages have failed.
Good Christians fail everyday, marriages Included.
Sometimes for perhaps flippant reasons and other times for reasons that we are not privy too.
Whilst we can have an opinion on the value of marriage in Christian life those decisions so personally made is not our business.
They are between the believer and Christ.
God is their judge not us.
He knows every detail and every motivation.
Divorce, it's very painful but cannot say it's shameful.
Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. After Hagar and Ishmael, how painful it was for Abraham? Until he passed away, How many times Abraham thought his son and Hagar.. Genesis 25:7-11.
I know one Muslim man, he also knows Quran very well. After dinner, we discussed about beliefs much. However we did not allow each other, but we both truly understand how difficult was Abraham making decision to sending out his son with his mother..
About divorcing, only divorced men, women and GOD knows. no others.
No matter where we live, we all same in front of GOD.
But our faith will define how strong we're shining...
Nessa wrote:Really it comes down to the consumation...are you married after you are pronounced man and wife or after you have intercourse?
You are married the moment you make the commitment under God.
You are "one flesh" when you have intercourse.
You'll have to hone your definition a little. As it stands, above, your definition excludes those who are legally married under a false god as well as married atheists.
From a strictly biblical standpoint, being of "one flesh" is to be married.
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom
+ + +
If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.
Nessa wrote:Really it comes down to the consumation...are you married after you are pronounced man and wife or after you have intercourse?
You are married the moment you make the commitment under God.
You are "one flesh" when you have intercourse.
You'll have to hone your definition a little. As it stands, above, your definition excludes those who are legally married under a false god as well as married atheists.
From a strictly biblical standpoint, being of "one flesh" is to be married.
So technically you are married when you have.sex with a prostitute?
Prostitution is a perversion of God's original intent for men and women. An analogy may help: if you load your car's interior - seats and trunk - with firewood and begin deliveries to your customers, you are perverting the car designer's intent.
There are many verses on marriage in the Bible. None say that a marriage has to be before an official of some sort. A succinct verse might be Exodus 22:16,17.
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom
+ + +
If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.
Rick's probably got a mirror above his kitchen table, too. 
Only difference is, Rick's food obsession probably included a legal clause he had inserted into his marriage vows.
