Christian Forums

Thank you Connie and kensington, for a Christian perspective.

I'm saying that we should behave, but that you aren't going to Hell if you exceed a speed limit.

Simply because God establishes governments to do His bidding does not imply that one needs to quiver over every regulation that may be promulgated.

Life is about greater things than speed limits. Or forms of marriage.

Quote from: CSloan on Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 23:21:28

Quote from: HRoberson on Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 22:36:56

Quote from: CSloan on Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 21:35:54
Are you trying to say that its not necessary to get legally married to be married?

What about honoring the laws of the land because they are ordained of God (Rom 13:1-7)?

If thats the case, wouldn't that mean the coveant of marriage is also ordained of God?

And wouldn't that also mean God cares if they are legaly married or not?

And so the 35 mph speed limit is God-ordained? Bit of a stretch, no?

Not according to Romans 13.

Or are you suggesting the speed limits shouldn't be obeyed from a Christian perspective?

Quote from: kensington on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 01:16:05
One more thing...

I didn't see one single WORD of back up for the "Common Law" marriage in here. Or the Sex is permissable if you love each other "WORD" of God either.

My thought is...  WE are living in very crucial times in the grand scheme of things. And there is a dying world all around us.  It's time to be SOUND in biblical doctrine as to what is sin and what is not.  We have at our fingertips the possiblity to see "MILLIONS" saved for Christ.  And we compromise on the WORD of god?

IF you do not want to stand on sound doctrine and holiness and teach it to a dying world... Get out of the way of those who do. We are prepared to step up, and we have the WORD and the anointing to teach, and we have the love to reach to them and offer them the truth of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and what He did 2000 years ago when He died naked and beaten in the rain for them.  LET us do what we are called to do.

STOP being a hinderance with this nonsense.  I will stand in the gap for those who do not know truthl. But, I won't step aside for the lie.  And anyone who says that a "commitment" is a marriage is lying.  To be blunt. 

Pray tell, where is the Biblical requirement for a marriage ceremony? Specifically please.

You will find none. The form of the marriage is irrelevant to being married. Every society gets to pick their own. If a society recognizes Justices of the Peace, then so be it. If they recognize Immams, fine. If they recognize Shamans, OK by me. If they break dishes and drink ouzo, that'll do. If they recognize common law arrangements, that's OK too.

It matters not what you like, or with what you are comfortable. The requirements stem from two sources: 1) God, who doesn't say much about how one gets married, and 2) the state, which in quite a few cases, doesn't either.

If God doesn't seem to care overly much, and if the state doesn't either, what's your gripe? To be blunt.   

My gripe is that it is a false teaching.  Only 11 states recognize a common law marriage formed today.  And if you leave that state, it's null and void.  So.... is that married? No.

God doesn't do things that way.  Yes, God gave specifics to how a couple becomes married in OT, and  who does the giving and the requirements to fulfill it before him.  Read it.  In the New Testament even, Jesus spoke to marriage as did Paul. 

So, I believe the bible holds up the idea of a giving in marriage, a receiving, with witnesses and some form of officiant being present.  Jesus attended the marriage in canan.  There were many people there, they even ran out of wine.  The father who gave that wedding was spoken of, do you really suppose the "bride and groom" went out alone and made a pledge and then the dad threw that huge process for them after? 

I believe for the wedding requirements we can look to the Jews.  They still hold those traditions set up by God in the wilderness to be holy today.  One of which is the wedding. 

And to imply if the state doesn't mind.. is being irresponsible.  Because, in THIS CASE... I don't think the state was mentioned. And using that to give license to sin would be wrong.  Plus, in all fairness you didn't inform the person, their marriage is only valid as long as they stay in that state.  That is my gripe. The whole thing misleads someone who doesn't know ALL of the facts, and if you don't give them, you do them a diservice. You cheat them out of ALL of the truth. That is my gripe.

Quote from: kensington on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 14:36:57
My gripe is that it is a false teaching.

What, specifically, is false about it? By Scripture please.

QuoteOnly 11 states recognize a common law marriage formed today.  And if you leave that state, it's null and void.  So.... is that married? No.

Well, yes it is. If you have a common law marriage in a state that recognizes common law marriages, you're married. Some states that do not recognize common law marriages between their citizens, will in fact, recognize common law marriages that had been established previously in states that do recognize them.

QuoteGod doesn't do things that way.  Yes, God gave specifics to how a couple becomes married in OT, and  who does the giving and the requirements to fulfill it before him.  Read it.  In the New Testament even, Jesus spoke to marriage as did Paul.

I don't suppose you have the references, do you?

QuoteSo, I believe the bible holds up the idea of a giving in marriage, a receiving, with witnesses and some form of officiant being present.  Jesus attended the marriage in canan.  There were many people there, they even ran out of wine.  The father who gave that wedding was spoken of, do you really suppose the "bride and groom" went out alone and made a pledge and then the dad threw that huge process for them after? 

I have never said that God wouldn't recognize a marriage that took place within a ceremony or one that had an officiant present. But your references to not rise to the status of Divine mandate about marriage arrangements. They are examples only - and their contexts do not hardly constitute a discussion of "how to get married."

QuoteI believe for the wedding requirements we can look to the Jews.  They still hold those traditions set up by God in the wilderness to be holy today.  One of which is the wedding.

And so no one has ever been married (in God's eyes) who have been married using some form other than the Jewish one? Not hardly.

QuoteAnd to imply if the state doesn't mind.. is being irresponsible.  Because, in THIS CASE... I don't think the state was mentioned. And using that to give license to sin would be wrong.  Plus, in all fairness you didn't inform the person, their marriage is only valid as long as they stay in that state.  That is my gripe. The whole thing misleads someone who doesn't know ALL of the facts, and if you don't give them, you do them a diservice. You cheat them out of ALL of the truth. That is my gripe.

You have some presuppositions that are not warranted. The first is that they aren't in a state that recognizes common law marriages. The second is that no state recognizes other states' common law marriage standards. You are, quite frankly, off the mark.

And so what do we have? Your contention that only marriages that comport to the Jewish form in some fashion are valid, but we lack any Scriptural indications that your view is correct.

Your contention that common law marriage is not marriage simply because not all states recognize it, or that there may be some obstacles if moving from state to state. Neither of those are sufficient objections. If one has a common law marriage in Kansas, the federal government will recognize it for survivor benefit purposes. In Kansas, the couple is just as married as is any other married couple. How do you say they are not married?

So we're back to the simple fact that you simply don't like the idea. Unfortunately, your scruples don't matter when determining whether God or the state recognize such unions. You may prefer a different approach, as do I. But our preferences are irrelevant.

Here's a Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

You will read a few interesting items:

1. Up until the Council of Trent, most marriages in Europe were Common Law marriages. If your view is correct, God had not recognized marriages before that time. Do you really believe that?

2. Even after Trent, the Protestant countries still used Common Law marriages, and Scotland did up until 2006. By your view, none of the marriages entered into in those countries were valid. Do you really believe that?

3. That states do in fact recognize Common Law marriages which have sufficiently satisfied the requirements of the Common Law state (well, except perhaps for California, but who wants to move there!). And so we find that your assertion is incorrect (assuming Wiki is correct; yes I know the dangers of that).

4. That many countries do in fact recognize Common Law marriages. By your view, none of those have been valid.

5. You will also find that there are various requirements for Common Law marriages in the various states and countries. That is not a problem since there are various requirements for solemnized marriages as well.

And so your arguments intended to deny the existence or validity of Common Law marriages seem to be rather flaccid.

I still giggle over "My fiancee is not a Christian- BUT WE'LL BE OKAY NOW!!!"

It's like, "Thanks but no thanks, detailed theological/philosophical discussions bore me to tears.  I see that y'all disagree over exactly what it takes to start up a marriage, but everyone agrees that whatever this relationship is, it needs to be a marriage, or else I'm fornicating.... Which I'd rather not think about right now, thenkyewverramuch, buh-bye!"

And she wrote "fiancee", which is the feminine.

She did definitely I.D. herself as female and the Love Interest as male, right?

'Cause if they're both girls we have another bunch of worms trying to escape another can...

Well I must have missed the day in Sunday school when Wikipedia become the authority OVER the WORD of the LIVING GOD.  My bad. 

Quote from: kensington on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 20:40:10
Well I must have missed the day in Sunday school when Wikipedia become the authority OVER the WORD of the LIVING GOD.  My bad. 

Wikki isn't the replacement for the WORD. It is an indication of what the state considers marriage. And God, from my reading of Scripture, doesn't seem to have a preference.

On the other hand, you have yet to provide Scriptural justification for a mandatory marriage ceremony. After two requests, I'm beginning to believe we don't have such.

Quote from: janine on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 17:36:01

And she wrote "fiancee", which is the feminine.

She did definitely I.D. herself as female and the Love Interest as male, right?

'Cause if they're both girls we have another bunch of worms trying to escape another can...

Well I was confused as well.  I thought that Huck Fynn was a guy, but this Huck claimed to be a girl. I bet Tom Sawyer didn't know.  Or maybe be did and that's why there were such good friends??? 

 

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 11:30:19
I'm saying that we should behave, but that you aren't going to Hell if you exceed a speed limit.

Simply because God establishes governments to do His bidding does not imply that one needs to quiver over every regulation that may be promulgated.

Life is about greater things than speed limits. Or forms of marriage.

I would object to the rejection of the legal institution of marriage as a licence to fornicate because "forms of marriage" aren't outlined explicitly in Scripture. But from Romans 13:1-7, 1Peter 2:13-18, and Titus 3:1 you can see there is an order that we are to obey, and that order ultimately comes from God.

Marriage is part of the order.

I would suggest in kensington's defense we need no such "mandatory marriage ceremony" in Scripture, but we are to submit to those already in place.

Quote from: CSloan on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 23:38:44

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 11:30:19
I'm saying that we should behave, but that you aren't going to Hell if you exceed a speed limit.

Simply because God establishes governments to do His bidding does not imply that one needs to quiver over every regulation that may be promulgated.

Life is about greater things than speed limits. Or forms of marriage.

I would object to the rejection of the legal institution of marriage as a licence to fornicate because "forms of marriage" aren't outlined explicitly in Scripture. But from Romans 13:1-7, 1Peter 2:13-18, and Titus 3:1 you can see there is an order that we are to obey, and that order ultimately comes from God.

Marriage is part of the order.

I would suggest in kensington's defense we need no such "mandatory marriage ceremony" in Scripture, but we are to submit to those already in place.

Rom 13: We are to obey the state authorities. So far, so good. The state authorities recognize common law marriages. Thank you for making my point.

1 Pet: At least in v. 13, we are to respect the emperor. The emperor recognizes common law marriages. Thank you for making my point.

Titus: Obey the authorities. The authorities recognize common law marriages. Thank you for making my point.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 09:06:17

Quote from: CSloan on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 23:38:44

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 11:30:19
I'm saying that we should behave, but that you aren't going to Hell if you exceed a speed limit.

Simply because God establishes governments to do His bidding does not imply that one needs to quiver over every regulation that may be promulgated.

Life is about greater things than speed limits. Or forms of marriage.

I would object to the rejection of the legal institution of marriage as a licence to fornicate because "forms of marriage" aren't outlined explicitly in Scripture. But from Romans 13:1-7, 1Peter 2:13-18, and Titus 3:1 you can see there is an order that we are to obey, and that order ultimately comes from God.

Marriage is part of the order.

I would suggest in kensington's defense we need no such "mandatory marriage ceremony" in Scripture, but we are to submit to those already in place.

Rom 13: We are to obey the state authorities. So far, so good. The state authorities recognize common law marriages. Thank you for making my point.

1 Pet: At least in v. 13, we are to respect the emperor. The emperor recognizes common law marriages. Thank you for making my point.

Titus: Obey the authorities. The authorities recognize common law marriages. Thank you for making my point.

Seems you are kicking against the pricks.

Okie Dokey.

Oh yeah. I'm not sure how your "defense" is one.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 16:35:41
Okie Dokey.

Oh yeah. I'm not sure how your "defense" is one.

My defense is for chastity, it seems your argument is to justify fornication.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 18:47:35

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 16:35:41
Okie Dokey.

Oh yeah. I'm not sure how your "defense" is one.

My defense is for chastity, it seems your argument is to justify fornication.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Totally incorrect.

My point is simply that if one is in a common law marriage, that marriage is in fact valid and fornication is not occuring. In fact, cannot.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 19:19:16

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 18:47:35

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 16:35:41
Okie Dokey.

Oh yeah. I'm not sure how your "defense" is one.

My defense is for chastity, it seems your argument is to justify fornication.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Totally incorrect.

My point is simply that if one is in a common law marriage, that marriage is in fact valid and fornication is not occuring. In fact, cannot.

However, this has no application to this topic except to fuel a godless argument.

But I, holding to values of traditional marriage; disagree with the pratice of so called "common law" marriages.

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 21:45:22

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 19:19:16

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 18:47:35

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 16:35:41
Okie Dokey.

Oh yeah. I'm not sure how your "defense" is one.

My defense is for chastity, it seems your argument is to justify fornication.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Totally incorrect.

My point is simply that if one is in a common law marriage, that marriage is in fact valid and fornication is not occuring. In fact, cannot.

However, this has no application to this topic except to fuel a godless argument.

But I, holding to values of traditional marriage; disagree with the pratice of so called "common law" marriages.

Godless in what way, exactly?

"No application" in what context?

It really matters not what you believe about traditional marriage or common law marriages (which in fact do have legal recognition, and was the predominant method of marriage in Europe up to and past the Council of Trent).

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 21:58:15

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 21:45:22

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 19:19:16

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 18:47:35

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 - 16:35:41
Okie Dokey.

Oh yeah. I'm not sure how your "defense" is one.

My defense is for chastity, it seems your argument is to justify fornication.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Totally incorrect.

My point is simply that if one is in a common law marriage, that marriage is in fact valid and fornication is not occuring. In fact, cannot.

However, this has no application to this topic except to fuel a godless argument.

But I, holding to values of traditional marriage; disagree with the pratice of so called "common law" marriages.

Godless in what way, exactly?

"No application" in what context?

It really matters not what you believe about traditional marriage or common law marriages (which in fact do have legal recognition, and was the predominant method of marriage in Europe up to and past the Council of Trent).

This is godless because there is no fruit to be gained from this exchange.

No application, because she already admitted she wasn't married and engaging in sex. Hence, your argument has no application here.

CCloan said:

Quote... Seems you are kicking against the pricks.

We probably won't be addressing too many issues surrounding sado-masochism here at the GCM forums.
Since we are a Christian Website and all.

Since Huckfinn13 is no longer a member, I am going to lock this thread.  If anyone wants to continue to discuss these issues, please start a new thread in which to do so.