If Marriage is redefined what shall we call it ?

Shall we rename marriage

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 2 100.0%
  • Wait and see

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2

soleil10

Well-Known Member
Messages
763
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
There is a war on the JudeoChristian definition of marriage.

Redefining marriage involves the redefinition of the following: Family, husband, wife, father, mother, parents, gender, morality and of course the content of bible.

Should married people cancel their marriage licence, get a refund for their licence fee and demand for a new institution with a new name that maintain the original definition of marriage ?
 
Did I miss something?
Marriage is in your heart and soul. I am already married according to my heart and soul. In time, it will be "official".
How is there a war? What did I miss?
 
Early Christians never needed a marriage licence, or even a ceremony - simply living together was considered "marriage" - a union of two people as a family unit - under Roman law.

The actual marriage ceremony we do have comes very much from the Roman period - in other words, the Christian marriage ceremony is nothing more than a hodge podge of Roman customs.

Additionally, the need for a civil document is entirely a modern invention, and is indeed solely to determine tax and legal rights.

So in other words, modern marriage - even within Christian churches - has a good chance of resembling absolutely nothing regarding Judaic and early Christian marriages.

It's all paganism. :)
 
Yes marriage is a legal definition. Two people in contract with one another defining property rights, hospitial visitation, insurance etc.

If a new definition or name is needed it will be the folk who wish to restrict it that have to come up with a new name.

To me it is sort of like fruits and vegetables. 90% of what we call vegetables are fruits. Tomatoes, cucumber, green beans, peppers, corn, wheat, oats, peas, artichokes, broccoli, all fruit.

The vegetable part of the plant is leaves and stalk...celery, spinach, rhubarb, lettuce, etc.

ie fruits and veggies, like marriage have a consumer definition and a legal/botanical definition.
 
This is like the sixth thread about this. Lets break open this 'war' mentality. I think the war is a war of accusation, a desperate attempt by lazy non Bible reading corrupt ministers to rake in money at the expense of others. Tell evangelicals instead of whaling on gays and Madonna or starting wars, instead of that, do something positive and productive with your time. Public criticism of people's sexual decisions, (such as publicly exposing flaws in first lady Hilary's marriage) -- these things are sin. They are bad sin, and evangelists and other public Christian figures are the ones bringing judgment on our nation -- not gays. They try to change the way that marriages work by judging people all the time and making people live in hiding. Tell them to stop worshiping at the feet of 'I am right and you are wrong'.

I still think there is no war on marriage. Homosexuals getting married legally is maybe experimental in some places, but it cannot really destroy marriage. I think there are verses somewhere that say "What he opens no man can shut, and what he closes no man can open." and "Upholds all things through his powerful word." Try taking these seriously. Marriage is a way of encouraging people to put up with each other, to learn to love. If it (gay marriage) doesn't work out, then hopefully people will have the sense to try something else. Don't boycott Disneyland over it!!!! Destroying the existence of marriage is impossible according to the Bible. Think of it as immutable by us.

"So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"(wise Gamaliel speaks in Acts 5:38-39)
 
The main reason Christians occasionally think homosexuality is some kind of war on marriage is from miss-reading Genesis 13:13 without really looking what the Bible says happened in the unfortunate city Sodom. They become confused and think that homosexuality was the issue and/or that it was contagious. The prophet Ezekiel corrects this misunderstanding by expressly describing the truth of Sodom's terrible sins. (Ez 16:49-50) They were not destroyed for being gay, in other words. No, they were destroyed for being cold and mean, and those things are the things that were and are contagious.

If there truly is a war, then our concern should be that our hearts do not grow cold (Mat 24:12) -- not with insignificant secular laws! If homosexuality was truly the great sin of Sodom, then copy Abraham. Intercede with God, not with the city. Honestly, when the angels came to Abraham they did not say it was because the people were gay, but "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave,"(Gen18:20) Look, if being gay was such a bad thing, then why was Abraham so caring about the people in Sodom? Surely he would have been worried that they would corrupt his nephew? Why wasn't he glad that Lot's sexual purity had been rescued, and why would he have sent his own nephew there to live in the first place? 'Father Abraham' a prophet was so stupid![PBUH]

War on marriage? No. It is noteworthy that marriages were still taking place in Sodom before it was destroyed. Even in that cold city marriage continued on right up to the end, for God upholds all things through his powerful Word! I'm not at all saying that Gay is the new Blue, just that it is not a big deal for Christians to worry about. Worry about your lampstand and your cold-ass selfish hearts. Unfortunately Sodom, much like mainstream evangelists in the USA, ignored all of the warnings that God sent (about being cold) and were destroyed. (Their lampstand was removed Rev 2:5) Sodom remained cold & heartless, thinking it was good enough. It was not destroyed because of gays, but for being unloving!
 
There is a war on the JudeoChristian definition of marriage.

Redefining marriage involves the redefinition of the following: Family, husband, wife, father, mother, parents, gender, morality and of course the content of bible.

Should married people cancel their marriage licence, get a refund for their licence fee and demand for a new institution with a new name that maintain the original definition of marriage ?


Really, in my eyes, the vows should be to each other that you love one another, will look after them even when times are hard. To a Christian, though, I would think it depends on their commitment to God. I don't think anyone who got married in a church without a real connection to God would be particularly bothered.

However, those who do have an intense link, could use the term union, maybe even holy union?? That's after all what marriage is - it's just now, marriage is a term used for secular and non-secular.

Holy union would be my best attempt at defining a Judeo-Christian marriage without confusing it with less religiously orientated unions.

I don't think you really have to re-address the terms of husband and wife.
 
Early Christians never needed a marriage licence, or even a ceremony - simply living together was considered "marriage" - a union of two people as a family unit - under Roman law.

The actual marriage ceremony we do have comes very much from the Roman period - in other words, the Christian marriage ceremony is nothing more than a hodge podge of Roman customs.

Additionally, the need for a civil document is entirely a modern invention, and is indeed solely to determine tax and legal rights.

So in other words, modern marriage - even within Christian churches - has a good chance of resembling absolutely nothing regarding Judaic and early Christian marriages.

It's all paganism. :)

Hmmm, an interesting twist I hadn't considered! One more for the list of Pagan-Christian connections.
 
There is a war on the JudeoChristian definition of marriage.

You really do live in a world where you see yourself as some sort of persecuted, embattled person, don't you? Odd choice. I don't see any sort of war on marriage, and I have the usual type. Last I checked, my marriage in God's eyes had nothing much to do with contemporary social conventions.

Redefining marriage involves the redefinition of the following: Family, husband, wife, father, mother, parents, gender, morality and of course the content of bible.

Why does it redefine family, husband, wife, father, mother, parents or gender? All those things have always had varied definitions depending on time and culture/place. Marriage has already been redefined many times in our history- socially, it is a contract to establish legal, economic, political, and social rights and responsibilities between people. This remains constant; the content of these rights and responsibilities changes over time. That's nothing new. Meanwhile, families have always been diverse and continue to be so.

Should married people cancel their marriage licence, get a refund for their licence fee and demand for a new institution with a new name that maintain the original definition of marriage ?

What does a marriage license have to do with anything but taxes? I don't kid myself in thinking my marriage license has anything to do with the actual spiritual commitment in my marriage or with God. It's just a state-based way of assigning tax and other legal rights and obligations. I don't see how that has much to do with religion, unless you count institutions like the IRS as religious organizations. :rolleyes:
 
What's the fuss? Perhaps the possibility of the expansion of other terms related to marriage also expanding when the term marriage is expanded? There would be legal grounds for adultery to include homosexual relations by a person who is in a heterosexual marriage. Is this what is upsetting you?
 
When I get married, it will be my marriage, that is between me and my husband, (and God), thats how it should be, for me. If you are married, and dont beleive in God, that is fine, Im not trying nor will i ever try to convert anyone. My beliefs are my own. Other peoples marriages have NOTHING to do with me . Whether they have God or (insert deity here) or not, as long as there are two consenting adults, and they love each other completely. Why should it be redefined? Love should be celebrated, not judged by others comparing with themselves.
 
Dream said:
The main reason Christians occasionally think homosexuality is some kind of war on marriage is from miss-reading Genesis 13:13 without really looking what the Bible says happened in the unfortunate city Sodom. They become confused and think that homosexuality was the issue and/or that it was contagious. The prophet Ezekiel corrects this misunderstanding by expressly describing the truth of Sodom's terrible sins. (Ez 16:49-50) They were not destroyed for being gay, in other words. No, they were destroyed for being cold and mean, and those things are the things that were and are contagious.


The main reason isn't Sodom and Gommorah. There are verses that specifically condemn the practice: Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, for starters. Now some may claim that those law were only pertinent to the people of that time, but if it was an abomination to the Lord back then, why wouldn't it be an abomnination to the Lord today?
 
Thanks for your reply, Dondi. I appreciate your input and your assistance shaking this down.

First, Paul's first topic is God's wrath, not homosexuality.

Paul, speaking to the Romans about the Gospel(16), says that wrath of God is being revealed.(18) He then describes ways it has been revealed in the past -- in other words he first establishes that there is such a thing as wrath. Paul says his 'good news' goes first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles (Greeks), in other words, Paul's gospel reveals the wrath of God against those Jews in his generation that do not receive the cross. He places them into the category of 'Wrath', a difficult concept for any person to accept, therefore Paul uses previous examples of God's wrath as precedent.

Paul's wrath places some Jews with those who died in the wilderness that would never enter 'My rest'. This is the wrath of God Paul reveals and which is further expounded upon in Acts 1 & 2. Elsewhere Paul describes this gospel/wrath by saying "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."(1Cor1:18) Once he establishes that wrath has come on the Jews in the past, he then can talk more about the gospel. Romans talks extensively about the Jew/Gentile relationship.

Secondly, the story of Sodom is not the only place, but this is about the war of slander and abuse waged by evangelicals. I think evangelicals are really making a mistake by accusing gays of somehow bringing wrath. This actually ignores the real problems faced by the Christian community, and it is itself a boast of self-righteousness before God. It is itself an attractor of wrath. If you buy into the 'God is going to judge us because of gays' rhetoric (I'm not saying you do) and mix in Romans 1:24-27, then you must also look at Romans 1:16,18 (as explained above)

The example of the wrath Paul describes is the historical wholesale abandonment of truth by a nation of believers. Paul is talking to the Hellinistic Gentiles and he opens by saying the gospel is for salvation firstly for Jews and then for Greeks. He then goes on to say "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth." He then goes on to say in verse 22 "Claiming to be wise, they became fools," This idolatry or 'Boast of wisdom' was Israel's sin (and James builds on it). This is also similar to what happened to Sodom according to Ezekiel 16. Sodom was a good city that turned and became proud. Paul's threat here is not that God's people will become gay if they suppress truth. His threat is that wrath is being revealed in his ministry against those who by their wickedness suppress the knowledge of the truth.
 
The main reason isn't Sodom and Gommorah. There are verses that specifically condemn the practice: Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, for starters. Now some may claim that those law were only pertinent to the people of that time, but if it was an abomination to the Lord back then, why wouldn't it be an abomnination to the Lord today?

Do Christians also avoid shellfish and pork?

There are hundreds of proscriptions in the Torah for Jews to follow - yet some people insist on remaining fixated on the sexual ones, and read their own moral cause into it.
 
The main reason Christians occasionally think homosexuality is some kind of war on marriage is from miss-reading Genesis 13:13 without really looking what the Bible says happened in the unfortunate city Sodom. They become confused and think that homosexuality was the issue and/or that it was contagious. The prophet Ezekiel corrects this misunderstanding by expressly describing the truth of Sodom's terrible sins. (Ez 16:49-50) They were not destroyed for being gay, in other words. No, they were destroyed for being cold and mean, and those things are the things that were and are contagious.

If there truly is a war, then our concern should be that our hearts do not grow cold (Mat 24:12) -- not with insignificant secular laws! If homosexuality was truly the great sin of Sodom, then copy Abraham. Intercede with God, not with the city. Honestly, when the angels came to Abraham they did not say it was because the people were gay, but "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave,"(Gen18:20) Look, if being gay was such a bad thing, then why was Abraham so caring about the people in Sodom? Surely he would have been worried that they would corrupt his nephew? Why wasn't he glad that Lot's sexual purity had been rescued, and why would he have sent his own nephew there to live in the first place? 'Father Abraham' a prophet was so stupid![PBUH]

War on marriage? No. It is noteworthy that marriages were still taking place in Sodom before it was destroyed. Even in that cold city marriage continued on right up to the end, for God upholds all things through his powerful Word! I'm not at all saying that Gay is the new Blue, just that it is not a big deal for Christians to worry about. Worry about your lampstand and your cold-ass selfish hearts. Unfortunately Sodom, much like mainstream evangelists in the USA, ignored all of the warnings that God sent (about being cold) and were destroyed. (Their lampstand was removed Rev 2:5) Sodom remained cold & heartless, thinking it was good enough. It was not destroyed because of gays, but for being unloving!
This coldness and meanness could certainly lead to dysfunctional families. ;)
 
Dondi said:
if it was an abomination to the Lord back then, why wouldn't it be an abomnination to the Lord today?
Not sure Dondi. I am also not sure what abomination means. Though literally it means to be disgusted, there seems a national concept to it. For example, in Gen 43:32 it is an abomination to Egyptians to eat with Hebrews. Don't know why. There is this concept for Israel though that the Law convinces or converts.(Ps19:7) The Law is itself its own missionary of the L-RD, so whenever Israel lives in disobedience to the Law Paul says they are suppressing truth through wickedness. Somehow abomination ties in with that, where Israel is not to be like other nations.

I said:
Do Christians also avoid shellfish and pork?
I could agree with Brian about the shellfish, but I don't know. I don't know where shellfish stops and abomination begins.
 
Do Christians also avoid shellfish and pork?

There are hundreds of proscriptions in the Torah for Jews to follow - yet some people insist on remaining fixated on the sexual ones, and read their own moral cause into it.


Their are laws of custom and laws of morality. Jesus taught that it isn't what goes into a man's belly that defiles, but what comes out from the heart.He expounds of this by listing these: "It is out of the heart that evil thoughts come, as well as murder, adultery, sexual immorality, stealing, false testimony, and slander." Matthew 15:19.

Furthermore, Peter in a dream was given a vision of a sheet coming down in which all animals are proclaimed as clean. Of course, in context, it was relating to the Gentiles being clean, as Peter was to witness to Cornelius the Gospel.

There was some dispute in the Church in Acts 21 between Jews and Gentiles on whether Gentiles ought to circumcised, but in the end all that was required were a few simple rules: "As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."

This is in keeping with the Noachic covenant.
 
Early Christians never needed a marriage licence, or even a ceremony - simply living together was considered "marriage" - a union of two people as a family unit - under Roman law.

The actual marriage ceremony we do have comes very much from the Roman period - in other words, the Christian marriage ceremony is nothing more than a hodge podge of Roman customs.

Additionally, the need for a civil document is entirely a modern invention, and is indeed solely to determine tax and legal rights.

So in other words, modern marriage - even within Christian churches - has a good chance of resembling absolutely nothing regarding Judaic and early Christian marriages.

It's all paganism. :)


Soleil, I'm afraid that Brian is right; while you are so worried about the "attack" on Christian marriage, you are blind to the fact that you are, in fact, IN THE MARITAL MATRIX! It's true; the institutional church has pulled the wool over your eyes, instituting practices that God did not intend for you to follow-- practices that you are now defending as if they were central to your relationship with God.

Let me share with you a revelation that I was given on this subject. When my wife and I were getting married, we had to jump through all sorts of hurdles because I was a Canadian living in Singapore, and she was a Vietnamese citizen; logistically, we couldn't get to Canada to get married (visa issues), and the system in Vietnam is so backwards that it's almost impossible to arrange everything correctly the first time. Thus, from the day that we tried to file for a marriage licence to the day that we received it, over four months had elapsed. This is governmental control.

We did have a wedding ceremony before that, in July, in which the pastor and elders of a church in Vietnam prayed over our marriage. The pastor wouldn't marry us in a traditional ceremony because he was afraid that the police would arrest him or something because we did not have our paperwork done (such faith, yeah?), so they let us take pictures in the church, and then prayed for us at a restaurant down the street. Very romantic.

Government control is bad; spiritual control is worse. I was baptized into an Anglican congregation in early July, before leaving for Vietnam. In the classes that I took before my baptism, I was asked to repent of all of my sins. When the pastor asked me if I had committed fornication, I said that I had not. However, he informed me that I had because, after asking a few questions, I informed him that my wife-to-be and I had made love already. I tried to explain to him that it was not fornication because she and I were to be married very soon, thus making her my wife. He was adamant that, since God (through the church) had not yet ratified my marriage, it was indeed fornication.

What F*%$#@~ joke!

My wife and I have been married for six years now. Are we fornicators? We have one child, and another on the way; is that fornication? Having expressed our love for each other, and having followed through by declaring our love to be eternal through marriage, are we still fornicators? The very notion is absurd, and makes the church look more like the sex police than a congregation of sinners hoping for redemption and forgiveness! The idea that a council of human beings, no matter who they are, can decide who is and is not married is completely arrogant and unjust. It goes against our basic, God-given human rights of existence, and it goes against the Bible itself. The church has the right to offer marriage to those who want to be married in a church, but it certainly has absolutely no right to determine who can and cannot be married, and any church that attempts to do so is nothing more than a collection of hypocrites! It's bad enough that governments have claimed authority over marriage; we don't need churches pretending to speak for God, and making his decisions. God knows who does and does not love each other, and he himself brings people together in marriage, just like he brought Adam and Eve together. Anybody who attempts to pull apart what God has put together is a fool, and by fool I mean a&&hole, and by a&&hole I mean someone who deserves to be kicked in the pills by everyone who has ever been denied their right to be married.:mad:

Yes, I'm a bit touchy on this subject.
 
Amen, brother! :)

I entirely concur. This idea of human governments being mixed in with church authority and either or both of them determining what is a God-endorsed marriage is just ridiculous.
 
Back
Top