Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126468 | ||
I am amazed at the lack of concern dedicated to this topic. If Theo-minor is wrong, why is he not being refuted with sound, contrary scripture? I am asking, are Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 6:16 incorrect? Is my assessment of them wrong? Silencing this topic will not help those who are incorrect reach any amount of understanding, nor does it address the issue in question. |
||||||
2 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Hank | 126483 | ||
All right, Stultis the Fool, if you are so concerned, step to center stage and grace this Forum with a biblical, I say, biblical, definition of marriage. We'll hold off on the restriction of the thread for now and give you a chance to shine. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126495 | ||
There is no definitive Biblical defination other than: Genesis 2:23 and 2:24 and 2:25. I know there is no better for two reasons: 1. This is the definition that both Christ and Paul use. 2. I am unable to find another. If this is the case, we must adhere to this definition. Paul and Christ both choose to do this very thing. My point is to the nature of the relevance of the act of intercourse. Paul expressly describes the act of intercourse between (I will be gender specific for ease of reading)a Man and a Prostitute as resulting in a marriage covenant, and that by the above definition. Now, if this is the case between a Man and a Prostitute, how much more so as that between two people who LOVE one another and desire to be married? This being the case, consider the examples given in other posts. That of Genesis 38:9, Deuteronomy 21:13, and 25:5 for example. These are examples of this very concept in application. We have no scriptural precedent for the NECESSITY of a "marriage ceremony." Now, if someone is incorrect about PRE-MARITAL SEX, lets figure out why or why not! Just because the answere to this question APPEARS obvious most certainly does not MAKE it obvious. This definition of marriage above does not make "promiscuity" or "debauchery" permissable, but neither are these words ("promiscuity" or "debauchery") define of sex between a man and a woman loving and desiring to be married. For that matter, the Greek word used, as described in other posts, is also not a definiton of two loving adults that desire to be married. Instead, the definition focuses on the act of sex in a promiscuous fashion (wether for money or just for the sake of the act). All this considered, how innacurate is it to say that a man and a woman, "engaged to be married," living together and having sex, are, in fact, "married." At least according to Biblical definition. Furthermore, I would like you to provide me with an email address, so that I can discuss the matter of the restriction of this thread with you in a more appropriate environment. thank you. |
||||||
4 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Emmaus | 126507 | ||
This definition of sex equals marriage is the biggest scam proposed since the sexual revolution with the pill. In fact it is directly tied to it. Men told women that now they were in control their biology and destiny. All they had to do was take the pill. Then they said, "now that you don't have to worry about getting pregnant, you really have no good reason to say no to sex with me before we get married. Besides, marriage is just a piece of paper. Who needs that, we have sex. Ooops! I mean we have love. Don't cry, we'll get married later when we can afford it and all that." Many women bought the into that scam, so the ones that didn't had to compete with women who were giving themselves away without any committment. And we ended up with less marriage, weaker families, more divorce in the marriages we do have and a broken down society where we actually murder up to a third of our children to cover up the evidence (children conceived without committment and "by accident") that the whole scam is a lie. The truth is that men sold women a bill of goods in the sixties. Men got what they wanted without having to make a committment of any kind. And if the woman gets pregnant well, that's her own fault. Then she is pressured to have an abortion or face the shame or hardship of having a child without a husband and all the social and financial hardship that entails. They call that "choice." Marriage is a personal and commual committment acknowledged and witnessed in a community ceremony, even if just at a courthouse, because the abscence of marriage or the failure of it has serious social consequences. So it is more than just sex between two people. Sex equals marriage, as recently proposed by Theo-Minor and seconded by Stultis on this forum is nothing more than Darwinian materialism dressed up in a few Bible verses to cover its nakedness. Emmaus |
||||||
5 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126548 | ||
As I've had to point out to everyone so far, you are proving your case based on opinion. What you said, while credible in a worldly circumstance, is not scriptural. The sixties example is not something that pertains to two Christian individuals. I didn't say, at any time, that promiscuous behavior was appropriate. I said that those that were already doing the act were married. That means, don't leave, don't cheat, don't break up, live together, share the hardships, raise the children together, etc. What I suggested in no way relieves them of the responsibility of their actions. I said they are married, not living together and having sex and just saying they are married until the convenient time comes to break up because they aren't getting along. You, and everyone else, are grossly underestimating what I said. You think I'm trying to advocate sex outside of marriage, but that's simply not the case. I'm advocating that what God has ALREADY joined together, let no man put it asunder. Further, you should reread the post now that your Sunday fury fire has worn down a bit. You'll see that I also told them to "go get married in the eyes of men" so they would not be a stumbling block. Hence, I told them: 1. Their action was not right, but irrevocable. 2. The act made them married by the union. 3. They need to get married by ceremony for the sake of other people, and to witness it before men. 4. That they shouldn't let anyone condemn them for what they've already done. 5. That they can be baptized, because, according to the people on this forum, we all have sin anyway. Since all sin is the same, they are just as qualified as anyone else for baptism. To this list of sound, reasonable responses, I was called names, slandered, ridiculed, and completely discredited on all accounts. And not one person did it with scripture. I got beat ugly with opinion-sticks. Stultis was the only person on the forum that considered the matter objectively for even a second. HE saw what I was saying, and why. No one else, including you, saw it, because their opinions were shining too bright. This my closing post to you. Try scripture in the future. It works better sometimes than opinions. Theo-Minor |
||||||