Results 301 - 320 of 402
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135087 | ||
Doc, You stated: "First of all, rightly or wrongly, the government is attempting to provide for you in lieu of your having a husband. Were you to marry, it is your husband who ought to be providing for you. If it appears that he will be unable to do so, then he would not be a fit mate." Perhaps I had miscommunicated, but I am male. Would you conversely suggest that it is the wife's responsibility to provide for the husband, if he is physically handicapped? Does this work both ways, or is it solely the husband who is required to support the wife? Shall the wife support the husband? Or would you further argue that a permanently medically-handicapped male would be unfit for marriage, if unable to generate an independent income? - You further stated: "Secondly, what you are proposing is concealing from the government your true marital status. Consequently you would be receiving money from them that would not properly belong to you, making you cupable of stealing, adding another vice to lying." Actually, there would be absolutely no concealment whatsoever from the government. If such a church-ordained marriage were to occur, it would be very much public. Please be aware that the government does not prohibit marriages, which are solely church-ordained. No concealment would be present. - You further stated: "Thirdly, you would be failing to submit to the government in a matter over which God has granted them authority. Indirectly, therefore, you would be resisting the Lord. Finally, in the eyes of the law, this would be considered fraudulent behavior, something to be more expected by the world than the children of God!" Again, the government does not ban church-ordained marriages (for example, between homosexuals, although this would be purely a heterosexual marriage). Rather, the government would simply not extend marriage tax benefits, under the guise of legal marriage authorization. In other words, although the government does not support such marriages, it does not ban them either. Again, there would be no legal violation occuring. - Lastly, you provided three scripture units: Eph 4:25a Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour No concealment of any kind would be taking place here. Rather, a full public proclamation of a church-ordained marriage would be present. 1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Would a medically handicapped male, unable to work, also be termed as being worse than an infidel? 1 Pet 2:13a Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake The law does not necessitate church-ordained marriages to also be state-ordained, as in the case of homosexual marriages, for example. Again, however, we are here speaking of heterosexual marriage. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
302 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135099 | ||
Dalcent, I don't view a marriage as being inherently dependent upon money, although some would view monetary wealth, as the basis for a successful marriage. Although the scripture necessitates a couple to be married, if they wish to build a family together, I'm not aware of any verse where state legal authorization is additionally required for marriage validation. I don't believe that the bible actually teaches such a thing. It's simply yet another popular religios myth, without a shred of scripture to back it up. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
303 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135101 | ||
Searcher, Hear are responses to your three following points: "Point 1 - Is your limitation on work based on what the gov't says or your phyiscal limitations? - Joni Tada works, as well as her husband Ken. She may be able to give you direction how to work. So your point has no merit." I have been certified as legally handicapped, by express determination of the government. This determination is based upon my physical limitations. Basically, my internal organs have been leaking large amounts of blood for the past twelve years, wherein I operate on one half of a blood supply. This generates physical weakness, which medical professionals have not been able to correct. Further, it is neither medically professional nor religiously biblical to compare medical afflictions of different people, one against the other. Simply because Joni Tada works does not mean that all handicapped people can work. This is because not all medically handicapped people are trained public speakers as she is. Further, your suppositions, that medically impaired people should independently generate an income as she does, are not supported by Joni Tada herself. Your first point is contrary to Joni Tada's whole message, so you seem to have missed the emphasis of her ministry entirely. Thus your first point lacks biblical merit. "Point 2 There is concealment, because you will FAIL to get a marriage licence. A pastor's actions don't make you married. So your point has no merit." Again, you are operating on a supposition here that is neither legally or biblically accurate. The government does not force or necessitate two people to get married, whether the church marries them or not. Nor will the government threaten to incarcerate or fine a couple, if they do not obtain a legal marriage certificate. Furthermore, not all churches view political authority as being greater than God's authority. God is the one who marries a couple, through the authority of the church. Scripture does not particularly necessitate state legal authorization to validate a marriage. Please provide biblical basis for your second point, if indeed you believe that such even exists. "Point 3 The gov't will not recognize homosexual marriages because of the law. Homosexual marriages are only recognized by false churches, since it violates Scripture. So your point has no merit." I have never suggested that the government recognizes homosexual marriages, nor do I believe that it should. And although false churches recognize homosexual marriages, the same cannot also be said of heterosexual marriages, when making references to the church. I have not originally made the point that you had suggested I made. My original point was that church-ordained marriages are not prohibited by the government, and are thus not a violation of Romans 13:2. Church-ordained marriages (whether homosexual or heterosexual) are not illegal. And although homosexual marriages are unscriptural, heterosexaul marriages are not always so. Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye PS. Please see the next post for answers to your questions. |
||||||
304 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135102 | ||
Searcher, Here are answers to your three following questions: "1. Do you FAIL to follow what Romans 13:1 says? That is to follow the direction of the gov't, which says you need a marriage certificate to be married?" Again, the government does not mandate that a couple obtain a marriage certificate, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The government does not prohibit church-ordained marriages. Rather, it is the common religious authority, which presents the unscriptural notion, that a marriage necessitates a government-ordained legal contract. "2. What is the purpose of marriage?" This is a rather broad question, so I'll give a rather broad answer, unless you wish to be more specific. The purpose of marriage is to fulfill God's mandate to Adam and Eve to multiply and rule the earth. Hence, the purpose of marriage is to build and support the family. "3. Do you not trust the Lord to provide for you if you are married "in the eyes of the gov't"? It appears you want money over the Master ... is that true?" I believe that the Lord will provide for me, whether I am married "in the eyes of the gov't" or not. Conversely, I do not believe that either the government or the church will necessarily provide for me in such case. Hence, I trust that the Lord will provide for me through any circumstance, but that the government and the church will not. Further, my concern for financial provision is not based upon an irreverence to God. Rather, if I am not financially provided for, it would thereby cause a worsening of my medical condition. Without medical provisions, my internal digestive tract would have to be surgically removed, and my foods would have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. It would not be adequate to interpret my financial need, as either a love for money or a denial of God. Hence, if I were to obey what you are suggesting, it would necessitate the removal of my bodily organs. Again, I am legally disabled. Please do not interpret my perspective or situation as an irreverence for God or marriage. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
305 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135106 | ||
Tim, You stated: "You point about the government recognizing 'church ordained marriages' is not quite true my friend. The government does not recognize any marriage except those identified as such by a marriage license." I must again clarify this point. I have nowhere presented the notion that the government recognizes "church-ordained marriages". Conversely, I have rather presented the notion that the government does not recognize "church-ordained marriages". This, however, does not mean that the government has declared "church-ordained marriages" as illegal. You further stated: "When a pastor performs a marriage, they are essentially acting as agents of the state. I can say the words, but you are not married until I sign the license! :-)" This statement is true, if we shall regard marriage as simply being a "mere" ordinance of the state. However, I view a pastor as much more than simply an agent of the state, if indeed the pastor's authority originates from God. But yes, many pastors do not possess authority originating from God. In this context, they are operating as "mere" agents of state, no different than a court judge. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
306 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135114 | ||
Unfortunately, the FACT presented does not originate from a biblical basis, whether from a pastoral view or not. Tim has rather presented a legal argument. At the origination of this thread, I had requested biblical representation. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
307 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135125 | ||
Searcher, I had originated this thread as a question, which has not yet been answered with applicable scriptural support. Here is the original question: "Is it biblical for a church to authorize a marriage that is not simultaneously authorized by the government? In other words, can a church biblically marry two people, without the couple also being married by the government?" And here is my original request for biblical support: "Further, my question is not regarding politics. I'm looking solely for a biblical basis on the issue of church ordained marriage. Biblical basis only please." - Searcher, you further stated: "Reighnskye, Genesis 2 doesn't allow you to violate God's law and make you married. YOU MUST prove bt Scripture you can be married the way YOU want." 1. Which of God's laws are you referring to? I'm not aware that scripture presents any such law. The only laws that a couple of posters have brought up are those originating from secular government, and those have not even been applicable in this situation, insofar as the government engages in no penal action, against church-ordained marriages. 2. You seem to be getting angry, if I call to account the fact, that none of the posters have yet answered my original question, from a biblical basis; at least beyond an inadequate appeal to state government, concerning governmental restrictions which do not exist. - The following verses present the divine ordination of marriage, in the absence of a written legal contract. Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) Further, no biblical basis has been presented by the posters in this thread, that necessitates a written marital contract. Please provide precise chapter and verse, if you have any. I'm not aware that a biblical basis for your stance exists. - Please further reference the following rules and guidelines, as presented by the Lockman foundation: "To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts." Are you suggesting that I have violated one or more of these guidelines? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
308 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135129 | ||
Tim, That seems to make perfect sense to me. My obstacle is that if I were to get married under a state-ordained marriage contract, it would cause my medical resources to be governmentally withdrawn, in the presence of my medical handicap. If these medical resources became withdrawn, as the result of a state-ordained marriage, I would then become subject to an extraordinary health risk. This health risk could result in the removal of bodily organs and/or premature death. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
309 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135131 | ||
Tim, Thank you for your prayers. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
310 | Doc, biblical basis, please? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135145 | ||
Doc, I must admit, I was greatly surprised by the length of your last response to my previous questions, without a single scripture quotation included with your various perspectives here. I guess I'm not so much looking for your legal marriage counsel on the matter, but rather scriptural verifications. - You stated: 1. "In that case, you are right, the responsibility would not be with your spouse to provide for you. Of course, it is not prohibited, either. A good Proverbs 31 wife would be doing her best to make good use of the resources God provides." Scriptural verification, please? You are making the case that the man shall provide and the woman shall not. - 2. "Gratefully, we are not yet at a stage where our government watches everything we do. The onus of responsibility is on us to notify them of changes in our status that effect their dealing with us. So, unless you plan on talking to them about your public marriage, it would be concealment by omission, which is lying." Again, are you presenting this on a scriptual basis or a legal basis? I honestly have no desire to discuss politics here, and am looking for solely a scriptural basis. You had offered one verse prior to make your case on this, but it had seemed like a misapplication to me. - 3. "Furthermore when you accept each payment check, you are tacitly agreeing to the terms whereby you received it." Actually, I made no agreement whatsoever with the government when accepting medical provisions, in regards to marriage or anything else. Rather, my lawyer had adjured the court, through force of law, to pay legally-mandated funds to the handicapped. I suggest that your supposition is false. - 4. "The law bases many of its decisions on something we inherited from the British called "common law." If you live long enough with a woman, or you declare her your wife to others, you have what is called a common law marriage. Although this marriage has no ceremony, license, or vows, it is considered a legal marriage. Although many people now equivocate on these laws in order to avoid one thing or another, nevertheless they have prevailed for quite some time. This kind of marriage would be no different -- legally -- to the kind you are describing." I'd have to investigate the option of common-law marriage further, insofar as three of my friends are also involved in common-law marriages. Two of them are heterosexual and one is homosexual. They have reported no involvements of the government, and were each openly married in one church or another. Either way, you seem to be operating on the supposition that if something is governmentally legal, that it is also therefore biblical. I'm asking for more of a biblical perspective, rather than the legal one that you've provided here. - 5. "One sure way to find out, however, is to do the following: Give the government office in question a call and explain to them your situation. Explain the kind of marriage you will be having and how it is not the kind in which they are interested. See how they respond. :-)" I've discussed this to some extent with them, but have not yet recieved anything biblically founded. I have been legally counseled to either permanently refrain from marriage, or to engage in fornication, insofar as the financial ramifications of marriage could indirectly place extraordinary risk on my health status. - 6. "You should also consider that you might be interfering with how God chooses to provide for you. He will always use means that will not be questionable to anyone." I would suggest to you that you might be interfering with the way that God chooses to provide for me, by your offer of scripturally unvalidated counsel. On what scriptural basis do you say this? I don't mean to be rude, but it seems no more than idealistic theory. - 7. "Remember, what does it matter how much money you have, as long as you belong to God? Submit entirely to Him, and He will see to it that these things are provided." Indeed, God has already chosen to provide for my medical needs through the avenue of the government. It would seem that you are attempting to suggest that the current provision is not valid. - 8. "I'd also give pause to the entire plan. When we are to move, God always provides the means by which we can do so. Sometimes lacking the resources is a way that God closes door." Again, you've not provided scriptural support for this stance. In this regard, I'll consider it to be strictly theoretical on your part. I would suggest that God is not responsible for closing any doors here. Rather, it is the secular government which has closed doors. - I will kindly reiterate: Please provide biblical representation for these marriage perspectives. At this point, I will have to consider your perspectives as either secularly-based or completely theoretical in nature. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
311 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135147 | ||
EdB You have quoted the following verses: Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) 1 Peter 2 13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. (NAS95) Would this submission to government also extend to the genocide of native American Indians or the slavely of African Americans? You seem to be operating by the supposition that these scriptures are all-inclusive, in regard to any and all laws. But then again, church-ordained marriages are not illegal. Or are you suggesting that they are? Might you find it remotely possible that the government is capable of evil? In my own case, the penalties incurred by the government could cost my bodily organs or my life. Would I be a righteous servant of God, by sacrificing my blood upon the altar of state government? Are you suggesting that I play the hero to adjust the laws of the land, by valiant and energetic effort? Such an endeavor would likely go well beyond my natural lifespan, and a battle with the government has been contra-indicated to me by medical professionals. - You stated: "Here in Florida for a pastor to legally marry someone a marriage license must exist and the Pastor must have said license in his hands and to sign such. Without that the Pastor would be breaking the law and the marriage would be nonexistent." Pastors are not prohibited from engaging in marriage ceremonies that are not state-ordained, so I view your reference to legal contract marriages as not applicable in my situation. You have offered a great deal of unpleasant possibilities, of what could happen if a marriage is not bound by legal contract, and is merely church-ordained. And I suppose they would be fully applicable when addressing an otherwise healthy marriage couple. You may consider me to be short-sighted if I overlook these possibilities, but i suggest that the immediate future is much more crucial in this particular situation. In other words, all of these scenarios that you offer would become obsolete, if I were to die within the next three years, for lack of medical provisions. Further, the weight of medical financial responsibilities would break a potential marriage partner, and would result in immediate divorce with alimony dues. - I think inparticular of my close friend who is supplied with 900,000 dollars of life-sustaining medications per year. In the next 40 years, his medications will cost close to 40 million dollars. However, if he were to get a job making more than 12,000 dollars per year, his government medical coverage would be rescinded and he would die. Or if he were to get legally married, he would again automatically die. Would his death be good for a marriage? Would the removal of my bodily organs be productive in a marriage, with the wife paying the bill? Insurance carriers do not pay for pre-existing conditions, and the government does not provide medical funding for couples, wherein one spouse is gainfully employed and the other is not. And God forbid if I should fail to fall in love with a female millionaire. What then? Shall I cut off my parents bloodline, by failing to procreate? My brother can't have kids. EdB, I understand the legal concerns that you present, but I consider them nominal when the lifeblood of others is at stake. Thanks for the prayers. Meanwhile, I'll endeavor to fulfill the following scripture, with or without your support. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
312 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135204 | ||
Searcher, That's fine if you're done with this thread. I believe that I've asked a number of valid questions and that you've been unable to answer them. That's fine. We don't all have the answers. I feel that a lot of what you've just said here is completely unfounded, but it seems that you're bowing out of this discussion. It seems to me that you did little more than ask me to back up my views, after failing to back up yours. Again, that's fine. If you decide to validate the context of the scriptures that you've offered in the future, I will be open to discuss them. Please remember that context is very important, and it falls far short to simply throw a verse or two at someone and tell them that they're wrong, and then stomp off angry, if they don't immediately see it your way. And as per your parting comment regarding Genesis chapter 2: The Law of Moses did not come into effect until God gave Moses the Ten Commandments on the mountain. Likewise, the events in Genesis did not occur under the Law of Moses (although there were other law jursidictions that came about several chapters later). The book of Genesis was not considered to be part of the legal Torah, until centuries after the events in Genesis had occured. Have a good day. :) - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
313 | Doc, biblical basis, please? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135205 | ||
Doc, I apologize if we are not adequately communicating. It seems that we just have very different views. And in such case, it would likely serve well to examine the scriptures together. Since we each come from different backgrounds, it would be understandable if we interpret things differently. What is patently obvious to one of a certain religious background, may actually be quite antitethical to one of a different religious background. This is why so many varied denominations exist. I'll go through each of the verses that you've provided here, and attempt to ascertain contextual applicability with the scenario that I have presented. Then I will respond soon enough with an interpretive breakdown of each verse that you've provided. Fair enough? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
314 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135207 | ||
EdB, You stated: 1. "You said church ordained marriages are not illegal. Do you know of any church that does marriages without a marriage license?" Why yes I do. A family member of mine was joined in a homosexual marriage under church authority. Church-ordained marriages are not illegal. Does this answer your question? Perhaps you've heard of this very thing. 2. "In Florida the law clearly states a marriage license must be obtained and signed for the marriage to exist. Now if you want to call something outside this a marriage fine, but what your really after is a redefinition of marriage as defined by the law of the land." What I'm really after is a strictly scriptural definition of marriage, without secularly-derived definitions. I am not looking for a redefinition of marriage, but rather a pre-existing biblical definition of marriage. Again, all I've been provided by posters in this thread thus far are secularly-derived definitions. 3. "You said I suggest you play the hero and champion this cause but you said it could take your life time. Perhaps but if no one begins it will probably never change." I have not been called to this role of changing the laws of the land, nor do I desire to change them. I currently have other life priorities. 4. "You said no insurance polices accept existing medical conditions and that is simply not true. Many major employers have policies that cover a new employee and his family or an employees new spouse without any conditions on preexisting illness." I am aware of the insurance policies which you mention. The obstacle, however, in my obtaining such an insurance policy is that I must first work for the company which offers it. These companies do not hand out these exclusive insurance policies to individuals who do not work for them. I do not work for these companies because I am medically disabled, thereby disqualifying me for coverage. These policies are only available to the working sector. I currently work a limited number of hours for one company, but the insurance policy that you describe is only available to management personnel there. Management personnel must work full-time. I cannot work full-time, because I am handicapped. This is why government medical funding has been provided to me, so long as I am unmarried by the government. These policies which you mentioned are not available to all. Rather, they are selectively targeted. 5. "In your discussion on this every time someone has presented a valid point you add another twist to the story. Such as your brother is infertile, etc. Frankly that tells me your not looking for an answer your trying to champion your case here. That is okay too. Look your in a lousy situation, I agree. The law doesn’t seem fair. I agree." What you are overlooking is that the twists to my story are real life experiences. You may indeed find it easier to invalidate my real life experiences, by entertaining the false notion that they do not affect me, and I am simply trying to champion my cause. However, I suggest that if you cannot palate the twists of my life, then you should probably refrain from offering counsel to me in my situation, insofar as it will fall far short. In the end, however, I have ultimately requested scriptural representation for your stance, as opposed to politically-based legal definitions of marriage. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) (continued) |
||||||
315 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135208 | ||
(continued) EdB, You further stated: 6. "You keep referring to Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. As God’s ideal for marriage. If you look closely it says nothing about the any church involvement either. If that is what you consider marriage fine. But again I remind you that is a redefinition of the term marriage as defined by the law of the land. You can call it anything you want but that does not make it a marriage." Again, I've only asked for a biblical definition of marriage without secularly-based governmental references. Nonetheless, I do believe that Adam and Eve had a valid marriage, even if God did not see fit to conform to the laws of the land that you suggest, when uniting them. I am greatly saddened that you seem to overlook the example of the first marriage on earth, as provided by scripture for us, when obtaining a marriage example and/or definition. Instead, you seem to rely solely on secular sources in your definition of marriage. If I ask for a biblical reference, you attest that I am looking for a "redefinition of marriage" as you call it. 7. "You said I offered some unpleasant scenarios. I wasn’t trying to paint a bad picture what I was trying to show you without a legally recognized marriage you forfeited all rights, protections, obligations and liabilities offered to a “married couple”. In fact you and your ‘wife’ would be nothing more than two single people." Insofar as Adam and Eve did not themselves reside under your secularly-derived definition of marriage, would you also term them as two single people? Again, why not go to the bible here for your marriage definition, as opposed to extra-biblical sources? Is the bible inadequate to define marriage for us, that you should rely on the government to define marriage for you? 8. "Also know if you live together for 7 years you could be declared common law. I’m not a lawyer nor do I pretend to know all the law but I believe this can be initiated by the state should they feel your attempting to circumvent the law." That's fine. I'd have to investigate the legalities of common-law further. You seem to have already painted me as a deciever of the government, when I have broken no law. I have in no way attempted to circumvent the law, nor do I intend to, but you are free to imagine me to be a circumventer of law if you wish. I do consider it a projection, however. 9. "In a word God does not define marriage other than setting these conditions or obligations. Genesis 2:24, Proverbs 2:17, Malachi 2:14, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, Mark 10:9, Luke 16:18, John 4:18, Romans 7:2, 1 Corinthians 7:10, 1 Corinthians 7:11, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Ephesians 5:28, Ephesians 5:31" I'll go through the verses here, and attempt to see if they have anything to do whatsoever, with the secularly-derived definition of marriage that you've elaborated on. Afterwhich, I'll get back to you, with a verse by verse analysis. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
316 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135242 | ||
EdB, I will respond to you by point. If you don't wish to respond to me, that's fine. I'll leave that up to you. If you do respond to me, however, as you have done here, I will be sure to respond back. If you do not respond, then I will not respond back. Fair enough? - 1. "Any body that marries homosexuals is not a church. they may call themselves that but I assure you there are not." I'm not quite sure what you are considering to be a church here. The government recognizes many non-Christian organizations as being churches, even granting them not-for-profit status, based on their pursuit of collective worship. If we shall define what marriage is simply by what the secular state says, should we not also define a church by what the secular state says it to be? You are choosing to adhere to one state-based definition and not another. That's assuming that we've both thrown the bible out the window here, and done away with discussing scripture for the sake of secular argument, as you've done. 2. "There is no scriptural description of marriage other than what has already been offered you. However since the Scripture repeatedly admonishes us not to violate the laws of the land we have to look to those laws for further definition of the marriage. And as long as those laws do not force us to violate God’s law we must uphold them." You are looking to extra-biblical definitions of marriage. Rather than looking to the secular state to define marriage, you would've been more biblically-based to look to the Old Testament Law of Moses. The bible does indeed speak of the legalities of marriage, and it does say volumes more than what you've offered me. These verses are contained in the Old Testament Torah. I don't see it as feasible that you would toss aside the Law of Moses, and yet quote the laws of the land, as if they were bible. 3. "You know best what God has laid on your heart. I retract that suggestion as not to upset you further." Thank you. My priorities are on medical treatments. 4. "I mentioned the insurance issue in reference to your future wife. Possibly someone you meet would have such insurance and your medical needs would be met. I didn’t mean you should get another job." That'd be a nice benefit, but God forbid I should fall in love without the right insurance policy. Then I'd have to tell God that He sent me the wrong one, and nix a love relationship over money. 5. "I understand life and it’s twists having lived it myself for 57 years. What I meant was every time a point is made you offer a counter point. It appears your intent is to debate this rather than seek advice." And have you not offered counter-points here? And most of them are secularly-based. If you wish to present a concise scripture unit, and then verify it's applicability to a specific situation, I'd be glad to hear it. Instead, however, you've told me that the bible says no more about marriage, than the verses that you've offered me. When indeed the bible has volumes more than what you've offered me. You've merely set aside what the Old Testament Law of Moses says about marriage, and have rather appealed to the secular state. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) (continued) |
||||||
317 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135243 | ||
(continued) EdB, You further stated: 6. "I too believe Adam and Eve had a valid marriage. I also think if they had lived in the United States they would have also obtained a marriage license. Again God’s criteria has been expressed here by me and others. In it God states his requirements for marriage which you can meet without a marriage license. However God also stipulates we adhere to the laws of the land as long as they do not require us to violate God’s law. With that in mind, every state requires a marriage license to be obtained before a wedding ceremony can legally be performed." This last statement is accurate. The problem is that when the laws of the land incur bodily injury to the medically-handicapped, the spirit of the law is then abandoned. For this reason, I must fall back upon the scripture, which I view to be higher than the laws of the land. And we see countless instances in scripture when the saints break the laws of the land directly in the New Testament, and whole legal systems are condemned of God in the Old Testament. I believe that you have used Romans 13:1-7 as an illegitimate basis to turn the laws of the land into a religion. If you wish to appeal to law as the basis of your religious beliefs, then why not turn to the Old Testament Law of Moses, which was directly administered through angels? Why do you instead appeal to the extra-biblical laws of man? 7. "I offered the scenarios to point out that there were legal issues that are effected by marriage. Whether you like it or not that is a fact. If you believe you can live around those issues fine. However as many homosexuals are learning there are things you can’t that is why they are fighting so hard to redefine marriage." I'm stuck with that one. I have no power there. 8. "God’s word says don’t let you good be spoken evil of Romans 14:16. Most consider it wrong to intentionally circumvent a law or situation. The laws says if your married, your benefits will cease, right or wrong that is what you claim the law says. For you to be consider yourself married and still collect those benefits puts you outside the law. While you and I may consider that law very unfair and thus wrong it remains the law. Until that law is changed and you consider yourself married in any form and you still collect your benefits your breaking that law. What else can anyone say?" So what does the Law of Moses say? You've again elevated the laws of the land above the Old Testament scriptures. If you appeal to the law to make your religious case, why not appeal to God's law as ordained in scripture, rather than appealing to the secular laws of man? 9. "Reighnskye please don’t get back to me. We both know what is right and what is wrong. We both know the answer to your question. Yes the situation as you stated it is unfair, the whole thing stinks, and the law needs to be changed. However we both know that if you live as man and wife you and consider yourself man and wife by whatever means you justify it, then your man and wife and the law says if your married you no longer qualify for disability benefits." You seem to be under a falsified impression that if you believe a certain way regarding law and morality, that others must also. But again, you shy away from using a strictly biblical basis, and conversely resort to an appeal to secular authority to make your religious claims. Rather than present to me your secularly-based definition of marriage, why not present what the bible says instead? The bible does indeed address the legalities of marriage, beyond what you are professing here. - And for the record, I will still get back to you with the verse references that you provided, as this forum is moreso intentioned for biblical discussion as opposed to secular discussion. Again, you need not respond, if you don't wish to. Just please don't find it amiss if someone doesn't interpret the scripture the same way that you do, or if they don't rely upon the secular state over the Law of Moses for the definition of marriage. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
318 | Doc, biblical basis, please? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135393 | ||
Doc, I had submitted this follow-up as a new question, but I guess it was deleted, for failure to conform to one or more if the site policies. I'm not sure if it will be deleted from here as well, but here goes, I guess. This is a reproduction. I apologize if you don't interpret it as biblical, but I believe that it is. Such is not meant to be disrespectful towards your views on marriage: - I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
319 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135394 | ||
EdB, I had submitted this follow-up as a new question, but I guess it was deleted, for failure to conform to one or more if the site policies. I'm not sure if it will be deleted from here as well, but here goes, I guess. This is a reproduction. I apologize if you don't interpret it as biblical, but I believe that it is. Such is not meant to be disrespectful towards your views on marriage: - I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
320 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135640 | ||
1. Wasn't the Old Testament Law of Moses strictly for Jews? Gentiles are not bound by the Old Testament Law of Moses are they? Since I live in the United States, I am not bound by the laws of either China, Egypt, Israel, Sweden or France. Why would I be bound by the Israeli Law of Moses? Granted, some of these laws have been partially replicated within the United States, but there are many differences also. If I am bound by any laws, I am bound to the laws of the United States. What other law holds sway over me? Romans 2 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (NAS95) - 2. Further, if we shall assume that some wild and watered-down variation of the Law of Moses holds sway over the church today, should the church not obey every last iota of the law? For example, the full observances of the Sabbath or circumcision? How is it that, if we choose to enforce the Old Testament Law of Moses on the church today, (which probably shouldn't be done in the first place), we leave out certain laws and don't go with all 613 commandents, upon the local congregation? James 2 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. (NAS95) Romans 2 17 But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written. (NAS95) - 3. Lastly, law itself is designed specifically for lawbreakers and not for the righteous. 1 Timothy 1 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (NAS95) If I am a lawbreaker, then I will bear it's penalties. However, if I am not a lawbreaker, then I am not subject to the penalties of the law. It's indicting power is diffused. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [21] >> |