Results 81 - 100 of 268
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | 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 |
||||||
82 | 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 |
||||||
83 | 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 |
||||||
84 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135131 | ||
Tim, Thank you for your prayers. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
85 | 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 |
||||||
86 | 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 |
||||||
87 | 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 |
||||||
88 | 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 |
||||||
89 | 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 |
||||||
90 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135085 | ||
Dalcent, I've not yet brought up the issue with my church, insofar as I'm newly attending the church that I'm at now. The last church that I had attended, however, was very off-key with a lot of their doctrines, so I didn't view their direction as credible. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
91 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | OT general | Reighnskye | 134688 | ||
Kalos, Thanks for the verses. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
92 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | OT general | Reighnskye | 134659 | ||
EdB, Thanks for the differentiation. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
93 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | OT general | Reighnskye | 134658 | ||
Emmaus, Thanks for these quite appropriate verses. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
94 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | OT general | Reighnskye | 134657 | ||
Kalos, You stated: "In the Torah (Law) God very clearly and plainly COMMANDS circumcision. Leviticus 12:1,3 (ESV) The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, [2] "Speak to the people of Israel, saying, 'If a woman conceives and bears a male child...on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.'"" So are believers under the law of circumcision today, as in OT times? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
95 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | OT general | Reighnskye | 134656 | ||
Angel, Thanks much. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
96 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | Luke 1:5 | Reighnskye | 134655 | ||
Emmaus, I appreciate the differentiation of baptisms here. Thanks. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
97 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | Luke 1:5 | Reighnskye | 134654 | ||
Doc, Makes sense. Thanks much. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
98 | What's Satan doing in Heaven in Job? | Rev 12:10 | Reighnskye | 134653 | ||
EdB, Could be. I'd have to ponder it a bit further, to be honest. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
99 | Does God curse people with sickness? | Exodus | Reighnskye | 134652 | ||
EdB, Very true. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
100 | How is the term "morning star" used? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 134651 | ||
Noted. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [14] >> |