SlitWrist
04-02-2007, 06:22 PM
That is totally the best thing to do, I might find it hard in the future, and others might find it crazy... but it'll be worth it all in the end. And if he really loves you, he'll respect you and your decision.


mmk i dont undertstand this i am not judgin you guys or anythin like that for if i judge you then you can judge me but help me with this please no kissin or no sex i presume till marriage ok thats all noble and stuff but come on you cant know a person inside and out with out know'n there body too it may seem discustin to you but its true love is a false reason to marry a person what if after you marry and finely do it and find out somethin yo ujust cant life with then what? or there ppl wont live with there other untill u marry yes you may loove them but if u cant live with them then what? please fill me in? ty

The Lamma
04-02-2007, 06:45 PM
Well, Jesus distinctly talks against a bunch of that. He says many times that sex is for after marriage, and once you are married you shouldn't get a divorce unless your spouse is extremely disrespectful and the like. This also strongly implies no living with each other before marriage, since sleeping together often involves sex before marriage. And you can know all about what a person is really like (what they are like on the inside) without living together. Knowing the real them has nothing to do with knowing their body. And too many people get hurt from living together without being married and other stuff like that before marriage. I also know that girls often respect guys (and vise-versa, usually Christian, but others too) who make a decision against that stuff. If you want some Bible verses about this stuff, I'm more than happy to find some. If you have any more questions are anything else you need to talk about, I'm all ears. You can go ahead and PM me or reply here. I can also give more advise on what you asked, if you want. I'll be prayin'.

ak_happy_gurl
04-02-2007, 09:02 PM
Well I think some guys like girls to get in there pants but there are some good guys out there that really care bout girls.

SlitWrist
04-03-2007, 08:21 AM
i care deeply aboot my girl and she lives with me right now and we dont see marrage in the future for now....but who knows maybe sumday..... thank you for the answers it has bugged me for sometime still dont see the reason but thats what you guys believe in so good on you.........

The Lamma
04-03-2007, 10:15 AM
Whatever floats your boat, man. But just make sure that your boat doesn't sink in the future. It happens to even the best of us if we're not careful. My boat has had its leaks in my days.

fifi la bomba
04-05-2007, 07:28 AM
^^interesting way to word it, but power to ya, man!

i hope you really think about what the Lama has said, Slitwrist. check it out in the Bible for yourself. there are plenty of verses on the subject....

skynes
04-05-2007, 09:56 AM
This also strongly implies no living with each other before marriage, since sleeping together often involves sex before marriage

I'd like to point out this:

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

There is a description of Biblical marriage. To leave your mother and father, live with the woman, and be joined with your her (in sex).

No mention of ceremonies. No government approved bits of paper. None of it.

forceflow17
04-05-2007, 10:17 AM
but, jesus also said divorce is wrong, so if said couple were to get mad leave each other etc.. then it would still be out of line with the bible

fifi la bomba
04-05-2007, 10:37 AM
right on... so one could say that marriage is the act of having sex, then?

The Lamma
04-05-2007, 01:08 PM
If what ^ said is true, where would adultery come in? And I'm pretty sure marriage is mentioned somewhere in the Bible.

skynes
04-05-2007, 01:27 PM
so one could say that marriage is the act of having sex, then?

Only in part. Marriage is.. finalised so to speak.. in having sex. It's the seal that... seals it.

There was more to it than that, they had to move in together for one. They had to each decide that the other was to be their partner.

but, jesus also said divorce is wrong, so if said couple were to get mad leave each other etc.. then it would still be out of line with the bible

Yuuup.

where would adultery come in?

I think you mean fornication. Adultery is cheating on your husband/wife.

Fornication is having sex before marriage. Which, although I'm not certain, based on what the Bible says; could be a couple, who don't have intentions on spending their lives together, having sex.

And I'm pretty sure marriage is mentioned somewhere in the Bible.

Would it kill you to go to Biblegateway.com or Crosswalk.com and look? I don't have all these scriptures memorized or anything. I take the time to go look them up.

Yes marriage is mentioned. The very first mention is Genesis 2:24

The Lamma
04-05-2007, 04:36 PM
Adultery is cheating on you husband/wife, so if sex made you a couple, many people would be doing it like crazy. And sorry, I sometimes use Bible Gateway, sometimes I skip that altogether...I'll try to find scripture next time I say "I think its in the Bible."

skynes
04-06-2007, 04:03 AM
Adultery is cheating on you husband/wife, so if sex made you a couple, many people would be doing it like crazy.

It's MORE than just the sex. It's the living together and intentions of staying together AS WELL AS the act of sex.

But yes you're right, many people today are adulterers yet don't know it. Many unmarried (in the eyes of the government) people are married in the sight of God.

It got this way because the government took over marriage, our whole culture has changed marriage away from the spiritual and physical bonding it once was and turned it into a ceremony with a bit of paper at the end.

However even knowing that, you could argue it's better for a Christian to NOT live with their husband/wife until they are married in the eyes of the government. Not because of sin, but because of their testimony and how people around them will perceive them. Since people today see marriage as the paper, they will look at the Christian couple as living in sin, even though they may not be.

The Lamma
04-06-2007, 10:51 AM
I'm still not bought on the livng together is what really makes a true marriage. The Jews, after all, had wedding ceremonies, too. Please show me a verse that actually says its the act of living together and having sex, not saying "this verse says that they shall become one flesh...Maybe that means that you just have to live with the other person, even though it doesn't really say that at all?"

skynes
04-06-2007, 10:57 AM
The Jews, after all, had wedding ceremonies, too

They had parties. But that came AFTER they had sex for the first time

Please show me a verse that actually says its the act of living together and having sex,

I did.

Maybe that means that you just have to live with the other person, even though it doesn't really say that at all?"

Huh?

---

Matt 19

4 "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'

5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.""


1 Cor 6:16 "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." "

The Lamma
04-06-2007, 11:15 AM
Where do you know that it was parties? I know that Fiddler on the Roof is later, but watch the wedding in it. And that verse you showed wasn't proof enough, man. The verse doesn't say that they become one flesh because they get married and have sex. It just says that a man shall leave his father and be joined to his wife.

skynes
04-06-2007, 11:40 AM
joined to his or know his wife is what the bible says when it means "has sex with". You will never find the word sex in scripture. It uses the terms 'join' or 'know'. There's probably others too.

Where do you know that it was parties?

Extra-Biblical Jewish History.

frymeskillet
04-06-2007, 01:50 PM
joined to his or know his wife is what the bible says when it means "has sex with". You will never find the word sex in scripture. It uses the terms 'join' or 'know'. There's probably others too.



Also: "Went in unto"


They use that one a lot in Genesis.

skynes
04-06-2007, 01:55 PM
Also: "Went in unto"


They use that one a lot in Genesis.

thanks, I knew there was another.

The Lamma
04-06-2007, 04:51 PM
What we should do is study Jewish culture...I know some people have done that, and when they talk about it, I always think "wow, that makes so much more sense!" But that would take at least a few months and visits to Israel and lots of studying...

skynes
04-07-2007, 01:52 AM
What we should do is study Jewish culture...I know some people have done that, and when they talk about it, I always think "wow, that makes so much more sense!" But that would take at least a few months and visits to Israel and lots of studying...

Do it a bit at a time. I kept my studying of the culture relative to my studies at the time. Or you'll just be overwhelmed.

For example I was researching into Biblical marriage, cause I recently got engaged (this is going back a couple of years) and I thought to look into how Jews did marriage.

One way they did it (and the funniest) is that they took a woman, brought her to the doorstep of their house and shouted to their neighbours saying "HEY, THIS HERE IS MY WIFE" and that was it...

The Lamma
04-07-2007, 08:22 AM
Wow...That is funny, lol. I still don't know what to think of your side of the argument, though...

skynes
04-07-2007, 08:44 AM
I still don't know what to think of your side of the argument, though...

Go to Google and look up Biblical marriage or words to that effect. Have a read at whatever you find.

If you find scripture that contradicts what I've said, that's fine, I'll concede the point.

Unregistered
04-07-2007, 09:02 AM
HAH! I have NIV! They use a naughty term like "laid with" or whatnot! So HA!


...and more HAHAHAHA!


...but seriously, I think it depends on what version of the Bible you read, when it comes down to terms. Though, I do believe I couldn't pick up a bible and find "SEX" right in there somewhere; I doubt they'd print a bible like that. :P

My kiddie bible has "sex" in a couple spots, in additional pages (little "study aids"). "Sex is a gift for married couples." I'll never forget those words because it was my first exposure to the word, I think. LOL!

The Lamma
04-07-2007, 09:07 AM
And now I'll never know if you're gonna reply...Lol. The meaning doesn't change from Bible to Bible; only the way of saying it. Unless they messed it up.

Unregistered
04-07-2007, 10:45 AM
I never said the meaning changes, I just said the "term"

...but if you're gonna be picky and split hairs over it, I'll just concede to your point. Though, remember some bibles have interpretations that might not be entirely accurate... and thus, the meaning may change entirely. But I wasn't hinting at that, that's why off subject I'd think.

The Lamma
04-07-2007, 05:06 PM
Yes, you are right. I have heard that there are two types of manuscripts used in translation, and the KJV only used the one, because it was the only one known, and its not as accurate. Also, there is a little bit of confusion over certain words. So I'll concede to your point. :P

the rocker
04-07-2007, 05:49 PM
Studies show that couples who wait until marriage have:
More sex
Better sex
Longer lasting marriages

The Lamma
04-07-2007, 05:58 PM
Good statistics, Tyler. I kinda forgot that I slightly knew that at one point. :P Really read what ^^ said.

agent_c68
04-07-2007, 10:32 PM
Studies show that couples who wait until marriage have:
More sex
Better sex
Longer lasting marriages

Pardon me playing Devil's Advocate, but what studies? Could you give a reference?

bob
04-08-2007, 10:47 AM
One way they did it (and the funniest) is that they took a woman, brought her to the doorstep of their house and shouted to their neighbours saying "HEY, THIS HERE IS MY WIFE" and that was it...

That's so romantic. :D

Unregistered
04-08-2007, 11:18 AM
Amen. I wanna get married that way. :D

;)

Yes, you are right. I have heard that there are two types of manuscripts used in translation, and the KJV only used the one, because it was the only one known, and its not as accurate. Also, there is a little bit of confusion over certain words. So I'll concede to your point. :P

YAY! Wait, is this a moment to say yay? :D

Pardon me playing Devil's Advocate, but what studies? Could you give a reference?

I was thinking that myself. Then I remembered that quote, "50% of all statistics are made up."

Same goes for studies too, I guess. :P Sometimes. But this would be a statistic I could believe.

skynes
04-09-2007, 03:58 AM
Yes, you are right. I have heard that there are two types of manuscripts used in translation, and the KJV only used the one, because it was the only one known, and its not as accurate. Also, there is a little bit of confusion over certain words. So I'll concede to your point

That is a long and dreary and confusing topic... I tried looking into it, but ended up frying my own head.

Studies show that couples who wait until marriage have:
More sex
Better sex
Longer lasting marriages

Yes, waiting for marriage is the best route. Then comes the question: Define marriage? Lol.

NightCrawler
04-09-2007, 06:30 AM
I am not a mod, nor am I claiming rights or authority by saying this:

Isn't this thread completely in breach of the Law of the Land?:
- Sexually-oriented topics: after much discussion with the board members here as well as with the band, we have decided that this is really not the place for such discussion - they should be discussed with a parent, youth paster, etc. Most topics like dating and stuff is fine, but if you're unsure if your topic would be appropriate then just check with a moderator first.
http://www.panheads.org/boards/showthread.php?t=241

Or has a mod ok'd the thread?

skynes
04-09-2007, 07:30 AM
I am not a mod, nor am I claiming rights or authority by saying this:

Isn't this thread completely in breach of the Law of the Land?:

http://www.panheads.org/boards/showthread.php?t=241

Or has a mod ok'd the thread?

It was being discussed in General and Jade moved it to here. There was no problem then.

Also this is more of a 'what is the biblical view of marriage?' not discussing the ins and outs of sexual behaviour. Which I think is what that law was about.

jade
04-09-2007, 10:29 AM
I am not a mod, nor am I claiming rights or authority by saying this:

Isn't this thread completely in breach of the Law of the Land?:

http://www.panheads.org/boards/showthread.php?t=241

Or has a mod ok'd the thread?


Please, if you have a question about a thread or any posts in general, use the report to mod button on the lower left hand corner of the post.


As to the subject matter of the thread: I've been watching this thread since before I split it out. While this a topic of sexual nature, as Scott mentioned, it is a thread that is talking about marriage its self, mostly in the Biblical sense. Sex is part of marriage. As long we don't start talking about the actual act of it, I think it is fine.

NightCrawler
04-10-2007, 06:55 AM
Ah, I interpreted the law to mean something more strict. Otherwise I might've posted similar... like a year ago. (I wanted to post on the dangers of porn when I got here almost 2 years ago, and that was turned down by a mod)
Please, if you have a question about a thread or any posts in general, use the report to mod button on the lower left hand corner of the post.
Sorry. I need to get into that habit of that.

The Lamma
04-10-2007, 05:05 PM
YAY! Wait, is this a moment to say yay?

I don't think its a problem, but thats me. :p

theelectric3
04-12-2007, 05:35 PM
mmk i dont undertstand this i am not judgin you guys or anythin like that for if i judge you then you can judge me but help me with this please no kissin or no sex i presume till marriage ok thats all noble and stuff but come on you cant know a person inside and out with out know'n there body too it may seem discustin to you but its true love is a false reason to marry a person what if after you marry and finely do it and find out somethin yo ujust cant life with then what? or there ppl wont live with there other untill u marry yes you may loove them but if u cant live with them then what? please fill me in? ty

i think by spending time with the person, seeing how they treat you/their friends/strangers/those in authority/etc. will give you a good glimpse into their character.

and when you are looking at their character, it'll be easier to see if you would want to be with the person forever.


emotions come and go. so to have a relationship based on that only is unhealthy.

same with having a relationship on physical appearance alone. (not analyzing your relationship with your girlfriend. none of my business.) why? because bodies age.

so then what should be the foundation of a relationship?
personally, i believe it is friendship. time and respect are the foundations you want for that friendship.

the physical comes easy so don't let it cloud your friendship up when you are determining if you want to spend the rest of your life giving to another person.

and determining that will take time... as all good friendships do. :)

because when all is said and done - when i am old, i still want to be best friends with the man i marry.

froggy'sgirl
04-12-2007, 06:39 PM
Personally, I think that with how people interpret Christianity in today's world, having sex outside of marriage is harmful to your witness. Because so many people have interpreted the Bible to say that having sex outside of a legally binding marriage contract is sinful, doing so allows non-believers to see us as the exact opposite of what we want to be-Christlike.

skynes
04-13-2007, 01:11 AM
Because so many people have interpreted the Bible to say that having sex outside of a legally binding marriage contract is sinful, doing so allows non-believers to see us as the exact opposite of what we want to be-Christlike.

And the ironic thing is that if what I've said about marriage is correct, half those non-beleivers ARE married in God's sight! So they're being accused of a sin that isn't there!!

The Lamma
04-13-2007, 10:02 AM
I still don't know what to think about that point, because I've always been against it and it is pretty convincing...

frymeskillet
04-13-2007, 09:17 PM
Well... I never actually read the beginning of this thread until now to discover that I helped create it... :)


Really though, without going into a whole bunch of scripture and the finickiness of it... I will say that true love waits. You say that true love could be wrong if you marry that person and they are completely different after the fact. If the person you are with respects you enough to really wait then that is something said right there. I think sex and intimacy is an afterward thing, one to, Like Skynes said, consummate the marriage.

We should treat our relationships with others as we treat our relationship with God. We don't go immediately for the intimate things with God and the rewards so to speak right off in our relationship with him...we first get to know him, find out what is wrong, what is right, do's and don'ts. We figure out, or attempt to, what this Christ is, then when we have an understanding, we can begin to become intimate with God.

Now, with that said, what should we do to get to know that certain person? Getting to know someone isn't about knowing what they like and don't like, their favorite foods, their pet peeves...getting to know them is more of an emotional thing. Once we can get inside the being that is the person we love and know their very thought and the way their mind thinks, we have gotten to know them. Moreover, look at the way they treat their relationship with God, and I can tell you right now that that is the way that they will treat the relationship with you.

froggy'sgirl
05-05-2007, 06:23 PM
And the ironic thing is that if what I've said about marriage is correct, half those non-beleivers ARE married in God's sight! So they're being accused of a sin that isn't there!!

But the believers could be accused of a sin- being a stumbling block to other believers. If this is the case, waiting really is the best position you can take.

The Lamma
05-07-2007, 11:42 AM
^And to add to that, a lot of them are adulterers.

skynes
05-07-2007, 12:01 PM
But the believers could be accused of a sin- being a stumbling block to other believers.

... I was talking about non-believers. But you make a good point. I may know this, you may know this, a few others may... but the church at large doesn't. So using this freedom may cause harm to other believers who don't understand it. Due to that, I won't exercise that freedom.

The Lamma
05-08-2007, 01:22 PM
Thats what i was just thinking. Even if it is true, I won't exercise it. Many people would be offended, and others (and some of the same) will think it wrong. I kinda repeated there, but hey. :P

theelectric3
05-08-2007, 03:01 PM
... I was talking about non-believers. But you make a good point. I may know this, you may know this, a few others may... but the church at large doesn't. So using this freedom may cause harm to other believers who don't understand it. Due to that, I won't exercise that freedom.

yeah, i agree. afterall, Paul encouraged us in just that. not to use our freedom to attach one for whom Christ died for.

DarkestRose
05-08-2007, 08:52 PM
Maybe I missed it, but where in the Bible does it say that sex=marriage? I feel iffy on that. Wouldn't that mean the first person one slept with would be their spouse regardless of the relationship?

skynes
05-09-2007, 03:58 AM
Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. "

The word joined = have sex with.

DarkestRose
05-09-2007, 05:57 AM
But he's joined with his wife, like married before the joining.

skynes
05-09-2007, 08:56 AM
But he's joined with his wife, like married before the joining.

Read the thread, I've already said about marriage and the effects of having sex with someone.


Show me in scripture where it says you must have an extravagant ceremony, caviar, wine, big fruit cakes with marzipan icing. A Minister saying some fancy words, a couple of I do's, rings, partying and the signing of a document.

but where in the Bible does it say that sex=marriage?

May I stress that I did not say this.

If anything I've said:

Commitment + sex = marriage.


Given what's in scripture, sex alone is not marriage, or fornication is a non-issue.


Commitment alone is not marriage, because they are to be "joined in one flesh"

Edit: Done reading, proved myself that this point is false as Joseph took Mary as his wife having never had sex with her. He only had commitment.

Edit:

Marriage and Dating (http://www.btinternet.com/~squiz/Books/marriage.html)

Incredibly long, incredibly thorough.

Another Edit:

Came across this...

Malachi 2:14 "Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the Lord has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. "

The Lamma
05-09-2007, 01:34 PM
Maybe I missed it, but where in the Bible does it say that sex=marriage? I feel iffy on that. Wouldn't that mean the first person one slept with would be their spouse regardless of the relationship?

Have you read the thread through? If not, it contains a lot. Skynes even kinda won me over. We've talked about a lot of scripture, Jewish culture (to further understand the scripture), ect.

skynes
05-09-2007, 01:49 PM
I highly highly recommend Marriage and Dating (http://www.btinternet.com/~squiz/Books/marriage.html). I've been reading it today, it's FREAKING enormous! But his logic and argument are quite sound.

It's mainly aimed at showing how dating and marriage are the same thing, but in doing so, he's also provided more support for the argument I've made than I could ever create.

The Lamma
05-09-2007, 02:06 PM
Uhhhh.....I think I might wait a while to read that....

skynes
05-09-2007, 02:11 PM
Uhhhh.....I think I might wait a while to read that....

LOL! If you really want to, skip to the very bottom, that's where he lays out the conclusions.

NightCrawler
05-09-2007, 03:16 PM
for·ni·ca·tion http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Ffornication) (fôr'nĭ-kā'shən) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

Word History: The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin word fornix, from which fornicātiō, the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant "a vault, an arch." The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded the verb fornicārī, "to commit fornication," from which is derived fornicātiō, "whoredom, fornication." Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303.Matthew 15:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=15&verse=19&version=9&context=verse)
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Galatians 5:19-21
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Assuming the writers didn't just throw out a random word that meant something different (fornication), it looks like the Scriptures regard marriage as a prerequisite to sex.

So, what is marriage? Here's a simple definition:

mar·riage http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fmarriage) /ˈmærhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
10.[Obsolete]. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

The Lamma
05-09-2007, 05:01 PM
Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.
Taking the other side of the fence than I did a while back...This doesn't saying anything about living together.


1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
10.[Obsolete]. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

Yeah, there is always some sort of culteral thing, but the Jews never had any legal papers.

skynes
05-10-2007, 03:40 AM
1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
10.[Obsolete]. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.


Ok that is our western modern definition of marriage.

Apply this to scripture.


Adam and Eve were fornicators. They were not married. They COULD not be married.

They had no legal commitments, no social institutions, no religious ceremonies, no contracts.

All they had were each other and God.

Ergo: Biblical marriage cannot be a legal, social or religious contract. It must be something else.

NightCrawler
05-10-2007, 06:25 AM
Ok that is our western modern definition of marriage.

Apply this to scripture.


Adam and Eve were fornicators. They were not married. They COULD not be married.

They had no legal commitments, no social institutions, no religious ceremonies, no contracts.

All they had were each other and God.

Not really. They were their society, thus they were accountable socially to only themselves and God. Thus, the binding sense that marriage has is only in respect to that fact.

You don't need a ceremony, only a formal declaration (a vow) saying that you will spend the rest of your life with your mate. That is only to ensure monogamy (because one will be united in spirit), not because a written legal documents have spiritual significance.

Ergo: Biblical marriage cannot be a legal, social or religious contract. It must be something else.
Also, they DID have contracts. Not in the written sense, but binding sense, as was "striking hands" or similar. Why can't it be a social or religious contract? God will hold you accountable to your vows, Christ made that clear.

skynes
05-10-2007, 06:45 AM
You don't need a ceremony, only a formal declaration (a vow) saying that you will spend the rest of your life with your mate

Malachi 2:14 "...Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. "

I already said that...

My point:

Marriage is not a legal document you sign at City Hall.
Marriage is not a cute ceremony in a church.
Marriage is not reciting a bunch of words in front of witnesses.
Marriage is not whatever society says it is.

Why can't it be a social or religious contract?

I meant the cute ceremonies and government approved documents.

So how is anything you've said different from my position?

NightCrawler
05-10-2007, 07:59 AM
Malachi 2:14 "...Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. "

I already said that...
I misread originally. I processed the context (and the misread argument) for a long time offline and tried to give more justification and reasonability behind the principle of the Scriptures.

My point:

Marriage is not a legal document you sign at City Hall.
Marriage is not a cute ceremony in a church.
Marriage is not reciting a bunch of words in front of witnesses.
Marriage is not whatever society says it is.
Not legal document. Not the ceremony, but can be (a formal vow). It is the vow one intends to complete for monogamy.

And ... what if society says the above? ... Sorry, I am being nit-picky.

So how is anything you've said different from my position?
If it doesn't differ, then it means you're right ;D

;)

skynes
05-10-2007, 08:08 AM
And ... what if society says the above?

Then it's not scripture and it's not sin to do differently.

Society has this idea in their head, and so does the church, that to be married in God' sight you need this fancy little government approved document and a flashy church wedding.

My argument is that those are niceties but are not what makes a person married.

What makes two people is married is when they have a covenant to one another to be husband and wife. There is no need for ceremony or documentation (though those things are helpful, especially for court cases n stuff). No need for witnesses (or Adam and Eve were in a sticky position).

There are people today, who the church says are living in sin because they're not 'married'. When in fact if what I say is true, they ARE married and were from the day they chose to live together and be together for the rest of their lives.

Skillet fan
05-10-2007, 09:14 AM
Well, Jesus distinctly talks against a bunch of that. He says many times that sex is for after marriage, and once you are married you shouldn't get a divorce unless your spouse is extremely disrespectful and the like. This also strongly implies no living with each other before marriage, since sleeping together often involves sex before marriage. And you can know all about what a person is really like (what they are like on the inside) without living together. Knowing the real them has nothing to do with knowing their body. And too many people get hurt from living together without being married and other stuff like that before marriage. I also know that girls often respect guys (and vise-versa, usually Christian, but others too) who make a decision against that stuff. If you want some Bible verses about this stuff, I'm more than happy to find some. If you have any more questions are anything else you need to talk about, I'm all ears. You can go ahead and PM me or reply here. I can also give more advise on what you asked, if you want. I'll be prayin'.


I agree with you. :)

The Lamma
05-10-2007, 11:22 AM
Adam and Eve were fornicators. They were not married. They COULD not be married.

I don't know if I agree. Is it agreed that fornication is exactly that?

skynes
05-10-2007, 11:57 AM
I don't know if I agree. Is it agreed that fornication is exactly that?

I was implying that they would be if Biblical marriage is the same as society's view of marriage.

If marriage requires society's accepted laws and government approved documents, then Adam and Eve could not be married as there was no minister to marry them, no document to sign and no government to approve the document.

So true marriage must be beyond those things. It must be something that requires only two people and God.

The Lamma
05-10-2007, 12:08 PM
God must be in a marriage for it to work properly.

NightCrawler
05-11-2007, 10:59 AM
[...] once you are married you shouldn't get a divorce unless your spouse is extremely disrespectful and the like.
Unless she is "disrespectful"? Where...?!

This also strongly implies no living with each other before marriage, since sleeping together often involves sex before marriage.
Well, I don't think it says it is wrong because it 'often' involves it. I think it is just extremely, extremely hard to flee temptation (which we are commanded to do).

And you can know all about what a person is really like (what they are like on the inside) without living together.
No. You can only know most of the relevant stuph. I knew a couple who, while I don't think they rushed into marriage, it turned into an abusive relationship. She, I don't think, could know something like that. Regardless, this is not a license for premarital cohabitation.

Knowing the real them has nothing to do with knowing their body.
My best friend would disagree.

And too many people get hurt from living together without being married and other stuff like that before marriage. I also know that girls often respect guys (and vise-versa, usually Christian, but others too) who make a decision against that stuff.
Completely depends on the people who live together. Generalization. But I think for the most part, at least one person of the couple who live together would rather have more committment when it comes to the relationship than they already have.

If you want some Bible verses about this stuff, I'm more than happy to find some. If you have any more questions are anything else you need to talk about, I'm all ears.
I'd appreciate some for the claim of the disrespectful wife as justification for divorce.

God must be in a marriage for it to work properly.
Are you implying that without a relationship with God, there are only unsuccessful marriages?

The Lamma
05-11-2007, 11:25 AM
Wow, I posted this stuff a while ago...Anyways, I'll get on it.

Unless she is "disrespectful"? Where...?!
Unfaithful.

Matthew 5:32
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


Well, I don't think it says it is wrong because it 'often' involves it. I think it is just extremely, extremely hard to flee temptation (which we are commanded to do).
Many times the Bible has said "and they lay together, and she conceived" or something of the like.


No. You can only know most of the relevant stuph. I knew a couple who, while I don't think they rushed into marriage, it turned into an abusive relationship. She, I don't think, could know something like that. Regardless, this is not a license for premarital cohabitation.


My best friend would disagree.
So you are saying to fully know someone you have to sleep with them?? Gosh golly, then I don't know my friends and family very well!!


Completely depends on the people who live together. Generalization. But I think for the most part, at least one person of the couple who live together would rather have more committment when it comes to the relationship than they already have.
Which is saying?? Do note that I have slightly changed stance since I wrote this. But I do respect those who make the good and right choice!

I'd appreciate some for the claim of the disrespectful wife as justification for divorce.
Read above verses.


Are you implying that without a relationship with God, there are only unsuccessful marriages?
I'm saying that without God, marriages don't go as well. They may not fail, but more problems would arise. Something somewhere says something about not having Christ means you have nothing. Or something. I'm not quite sure what to look up for that.

skynes
05-11-2007, 12:56 PM
Many times the Bible has said "and they lay together, and she conceived" or something of the like.

Lay together, knew his wife, joined with her, they're all terms for the same thing: 'Had sex with'.

Sleeping (actually falling sleep) with someone, is not sin as Nightcrawler said, it just makes the temptation much harder to resist.

So you are saying to fully know someone you have to sleep with them?? Gosh golly, then I don't know my friends and family very well!!

Nightcrawler... WHY am I always covering for you? LOL

Nights meaning was that physical appearance does play a role like it or not, not that you need to have sex to know them.

As the original statement was "Knowing the real them has nothing to do with knowing their body. ", you intended it in a sexual reference, I don't think Nightcrawler picked up on it.

I'm saying that without God, marriages don't go as well. They may not fail, but more problems would arise.

Ehhh... I'm not sure what to make of this. It's slightly insinuating that Christian marriages always work and have less problems, but from what I've seen they break down and divorve just as often as unbelieving marriages.

I can say that Christian marriages probably generate more problems as they don't have just natural humanity and the world to contend with, but Satan as well.

Add in the Bible's assurance of problems and strife all to make us in the image of Christ, you're left to conclude... yeah Christian Marriages would have more problems.

*waits for a married Christian to chime in here and either support me or shoot me down*

NightCrawler
05-11-2007, 02:15 PM
Wow, I posted this stuff a while ago...Anyways, I'll get on it.


Unfaithful.

Matthew 5:32
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Unfaithful --> Infidelity --> Adultery

Latin word is fidelis ('faithful'), in negates the word (like 'un'). The word means to cheat on your spouse sexually. An affair. Anothersynonymfor'adultery'.

Many times the Bible has said "and they lay together, and she conceived" or something of the like.
Non-conclusive, missing the point. Redirect to Skynes' post.

So you are saying to fully know someone you have to sleep with them?? Gosh golly, then I don't know my friends and family very well!!
Nights meaning was that physical appearance does play a role like it or not, not that you need to have sex to know them.

As the original statement was "Knowing the real them has nothing to do with knowing their body. ", you intended it in a sexual reference, I don't think Nightcrawler picked up on it.
Actually, I was meaning that joining someone sexually changes your knowledge of him/her significantly. That's why they (hebrews) used a form of the verb "to know", and how we translate it.

Meanwhile, I would say you know probably do them very well, but not as if one of them were your spouse. Again, I said "most" of the "relevant" information.

Which is saying?? Do note that I have slightly changed stance since I wrote this.
Interesting acknowledgement.

I'm saying that without God, marriages don't go as well. They may not fail, but more problems would arise. Something somewhere says something about not having Christ means you have nothing. Or something. I'm not quite sure what to look up for that.
I think I know what you're referring to, but totally taken out of context.


Nightcrawler... WHY am I always covering for you? LOL
ROFL!

I posted it today! How are you obligated to cover for me? :P

Ehhh... I'm not sure what to make of this. It's slightly insinuating that Christian marriages always work and have less problems, but from what I've seen they break down and divorve just as often as unbelieving marriages.

I can say that Christian marriages probably generate more problems as they don't have just natural humanity and the world to contend with, but Satan as well.

Add in the Bible's assurance of problems and strife all to make us in the image of Christ, you're left to conclude... yeah Christian Marriages would have more problems.

*waits for a married Christian to chime in here and either support me or shoot me down*
Exactly. ... Though I am not sure I agree that Christians have more problems. They are supposed to be more loving, more fiscally responsible, and reaping the benefits of God's blessings by following Him. Wouldn't that ... Sounds like a new thread to me :)

bobbi
05-11-2007, 06:44 PM
I'm totally coming in in the middle of things here, but I DEFINITELY believe in saving for marriage only. In fact, I've also decided to save kissing for marriage because I don't even want to have the temptation of arise before I'm married. I want to know that I'm going to spend the rest of my life with the person I give myself to, because I know what I have is precious to God. I know that he didn't design to be messed around with. The devil twisted it into something that it isn't and turned it into sin by pulling it out of the context of marriage. In a way, I kind of view premarital outside of marriage as aldulttury. It is, in a sense, cheating your husband/wife out of what is rightfully theirs. If you don't kiss/have with anyone before you're married, your spouse will surely please you because you have nothing to compare them to! I do not believe that people must live together or sleep together before marriage in order to "know" eachother. I think that is just an excuse to mess around without the intention of marriage. I personally don't even want to date someone if they aren't someone I feel that God could lead me to marry. I dunno, that's just my 2 cents and what I am convicted on.

By the way, my computer has a "word block" thing on it, so the word s.e.x (haha, that's how I have to type it if I want it to show up) might not go through on this post. Sorry. :(

theelectric3
05-11-2007, 07:22 PM
^ i agree completely. in fact, that's my personal convictions in a nutshell as well. :)

skynes
05-12-2007, 05:30 AM
For me also, I can tell you that Laura is my first girlfriend and my first kiss.

I wanted noone other than God's pick. (I got it too )

bobbi
05-12-2007, 07:42 AM
Awe.:) That's very cute. I figure that God can pick someone better for me than I could anyways...:P

The Lamma
05-12-2007, 09:19 AM
Since I'm too lazy, I'm going to only quote Skyne's post. And you guys said similar stuff.

Lay together, knew his wife, joined with her, they're all terms for the same thing: 'Had sex with'.
Yeah...Making it fit to what you want never works, even if it does...:P

Sleeping (actually falling sleep) with someone, is not sin as Nightcrawler said, it just makes the temptation much harder to resist.
Point taken.

Nights meaning was that physical appearance does play a role like it or not, not that you need to have sex to know them.

As the original statement was "Knowing the real them has nothing to do with knowing their body. ", you intended it in a sexual reference, I don't think Nightcrawler picked up on it.
I know you are saying something that should make sense, and that should fit into my brain, but somewhere in the way you said it doesn't fit into my head.

Ehhh... I'm not sure what to make of this. It's slightly insinuating that Christian marriages always work and have less problems, but from what I've seen they break down and divorve just as often as unbelieving marriages.

I can say that Christian marriages probably generate more problems as they don't have just natural humanity and the world to contend with, but Satan as well.

Add in the Bible's assurance of problems and strife all to make us in the image of Christ, you're left to conclude... yeah Christian Marriages would have more problems.
What kind of 'Christian' are you talking here?



I'm actually going to quote nightcrawler here...
Interesting acknowledgement.
What do you really think, though? It may be interesting, but that don't say anything for discussion sake, does it?

NightCrawler
05-12-2007, 09:49 AM
What do you really think, though? It may be interesting, but that don't say anything for discussion sake, does it?
Most people do not acknowledge that they changed positions somewhat in a short period of time. I found it noteworthy that you would mention it.

The Lamma
05-12-2007, 11:23 AM
I originally wrote it on 04-02-2007, which was about 40 days ago, if I am correct. Enough time to change positions? I think so. Skynes kinda won me over somewhat since then.

skynes
05-12-2007, 11:43 AM
Yeah...Making it fit to what you want never works, even if it does

Huh? Are you suggesting that I'm twisting the meaning of the words to make it say what I want it to?

What kind of 'Christian' are you talking here?


Anyone who is saved. We have more problems and more persecutions because we are saved, the world hates us and Satan targets us. Why should our marriages be any different? they will also be targetted by the world and by the enemy.

The Lamma
05-12-2007, 11:51 AM
Lol. I was 'twisting', I guess. And there is two kinds of Christians: those who 'claim' to be, and true followers of Christ.

skynes
05-12-2007, 12:09 PM
Lol. I was 'twisting', I guess. And there is two kinds of Christians: those who 'claim' to be, and true followers of Christ.

*poke* lol.

If I mean those who 'claim' to be, I'll say those who 'claim' to be. I meant a serious believer.

NightCrawler
05-12-2007, 12:29 PM
I originally wrote it on 04-02-2007, which was about 40 days ago, if I am correct. Enough time to change positions? I think so. Skynes kinda won me over somewhat since then.
I meant it more out of noticing your humility compared to other people with which I discuss religious beliefs.

The Lamma
05-12-2007, 02:26 PM
*poke* lol.

If I mean those who 'claim' to be, I'll say those who 'claim' to be. I meant a serious believer.

Ow...:P Now I know for future reference. And you do have a point. My point? No point. I don't know. At this precise moment in time my brain is going all funky...Maybe that energy drink I had last night is FINALLY getting to me?

I meant it more out of noticing your humility compared to other people with which I discuss religious beliefs.
I'm only human, I make mistakes, I think certain things are truth when they are not. And I recognize that, so I must accept what seems more like truth, especially when it comes to scriptural back-up. God and the Bible over-rule everything.

But I'm kinda getting off topic here...

anniemareerose
05-27-2007, 07:05 AM
hmmm. too much trebuchet is hard to read...

skynes, u seem pretty hardcore in somewhat liberal beliefs. which is interesting. and i say somewhat, because i dont mean all that liberal connotes. did u look into the seriousness of covenent cermemoies in th OT. like cutting animals in half and walking through them kinda thing. and if marriage is too a convenant... and so on and so on...

im tired. do u get my point? has this been addressed already?

skynes
05-27-2007, 08:15 AM
skynes, u seem pretty hardcore in somewhat liberal beliefs

Lol. Go read my stuff elsewhere... Liberal!? Me!? Lol. I'm about as anti-liberal as you can get.

*wonders if anyone else got a kick out of this comment*

did u look into the seriousness of covenent cermemoies in th OT.

I've never heard of the seriousness of the ceremony, only the seriousness of the covenant. I have however heard of Pharisees, who took the ceremony and made that the whole focal point, as opposed to the purpose of it.

like cutting animals in half and walking through them kinda thing

I don't know this one.


im tired. do u get my point? has this been addressed already?

I think you're trying to say that the cermeony is very important. Correct me if I'm wrong.

However what I'm trying to aim for is as biblical a view as possible and you didn't provide anything Biblical other than a general reference to covenant ceremonies.

Could you please specifically reference something that I can read?

NightCrawler
05-27-2007, 10:58 AM
I have been thinking, when is one married officially? Because God speaks against pre-marital sex, then it is purely dependent on the event when one is married.

Is it when you have made a personal commitment to be with someone "til death do you part", or is it when it is joint? Or perhaps after it is socially contracted?

Notice that way-back-when they could "strike hands" and it would be legally binding. Other cultures, you would need a vow (your word) or even another culture a blood ritual to make it legal in that society. Currently, the legal contract needs to be documented and signed. (marriage license)

So, must marriage be necessarily legally binding?

DarkestRose
05-27-2007, 12:26 PM
Haha...Skynes is a liberal.

skynes
05-27-2007, 02:21 PM
So, must marriage be necessarily legally binding?


My argument is no, or Adam and Eve were fornicators.

I think I covered this a bit back.

The Lamma
05-28-2007, 12:13 PM
Ah, but God was the law then.

DarkestRose
05-28-2007, 01:21 PM
To be on the safe side, it may be better to just wait until after the legal ceremony of marriage.

The Lamma
05-28-2007, 04:47 PM
... I was talking about non-believers. But you make a good point. I may know this, you may know this, a few others may... but the church at large doesn't. So using this freedom may cause harm to other believers who don't understand it. Due to that, I won't exercise that freedom.

Do note this point that Skynes had.

NightCrawler
05-28-2007, 06:10 PM
My argument is no, or Adam and Eve were fornicators.

I think I covered this a bit back.
I think you touched on it. But legally binding contracts are only in respect to the society -- Adam, Eve, and God were the society, therefore they were bound to themselves essentially... and thus not fornicators.

skynes
05-29-2007, 09:30 AM
To be on the safe side, it may be better to just wait until after the legal ceremony of marriage.


Safe side of what?

I think you touched on it. But legally binding contracts are only in respect to the society -- Adam, Eve, and God were the society, therefore they were bound to themselves essentially... and thus not fornicators.

So what was the point you were getting at?

NightCrawler
05-29-2007, 12:12 PM
So what was the point you were getting at?
That the marriage license is what is required for people to be married in our currently society. (at least US)

EDIT:
Not the paper itself -- that is rather shallow -- but whatever makes the union legally binding and recognized by the society.

skynes
05-29-2007, 12:16 PM
My overall point:

Todays teaching:

Marriage in God's sight equals Marriage in Governments sight

My point:

Marriage in God's sight does not equal Marriage in Government's sight

You can be married in God's sight and not in the Governments.

DarkestRose
05-29-2007, 12:29 PM
So if the only prerequisite for being married in God's sight is having the commitment to be married, couldn't technically two fourteen-year-olds have honestly be in love and sincerely have the commitment to be together forever, and thus be married in God's sight even if by law they cannot legally marry?

skynes
05-29-2007, 12:47 PM
Common teaching is that Mary was about 13. You tell me. Lol.

Ok seriously, I would say yes, because age is not a factor. Nowhere in scripture does it suggest you marry at a certain age, or ban marriage before a certain age. That is something our culture has done. Common practice through Biblical times was to marry at 13-14.

I'm in no position to say that was right or wrong, though it does make parental arranged marriages make more sense. However the fact stands that scripture does not place an age limit.


Interesting tidbit:

Matt 1

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

...

24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife.

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

Joseph, still betrothed to Mary i.e. No wedding ceremony yet. Was considered to be her husband.

This was also the verse that made me change my original stance on sex being the main factor of marriage. Since Jospeh was Mary's husband having never had sex with her until Jesus was born.

DarkestRose
05-29-2007, 12:50 PM
So would you say, to further by hypothetical situation of the fourteen year old couple, that if they then slept together it would not be a sin, since they are married in God's sight?

skynes
05-29-2007, 12:53 PM
So would you say, to further by hypothetical situation of the fourteen year old couple, that if they then slept together it would not be a sin, since they are married in God's sight?

I see where you're going with this. Please don't insult my intelligence by twisting my argument into promoting teenage sex. My intention is to gain and show as accurate a Biblical view of marriage as I can.

To that end:

Sin is unbelief or rebellion toward God.

God created sex for marriage.

Sex within marriage is not sin.

DarkestRose
05-29-2007, 01:04 PM
I'm not trying to twist it. I wanted a whole picture. We already discussed that the age-factor is not an issue for teens, and it would be real commitment because if it wasn't they wouldn't be married in God's eyes. So the situation couldn't be twisted into being a teenage fling because of the requirement for commitment. So the scenario is still about marriage and not teen sex.

My point is not to twist it toward teen sex because they could choose to go without hold from sex as Mary and Joseph did under the understanding of not being ready for all the responsibility that it entails. And if they loved each other, it wouldn't just be about sex anyway. So that makes sense to me. My wonder was if they didn't, would that be considered a sin?

Again, I wasn't trying to twist it. I was actually surprised and a little hurt that you took it that way.

skynes
05-29-2007, 01:11 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cause hurt. I could blame it on my mistrustfulness, being exhausted or a dozen other things, but I won't cause you deserve more respect than that.

I publically insulted you, so I'll publically apologize to you.

I'm sorry for assuming wrong intentions from your post.

---
In answer to your post, what I said already would be the answer.

Sex within marriage is not sin. It was created for marriage. So a married couple doing that is not sin, regardless of circumstances.

DarkestRose
05-29-2007, 01:14 PM
It's cool.

:)

NightCrawler
05-29-2007, 06:45 PM
Skynes, I know your point. I don't want to frustrate you any further, but ... how do we know when a commitment is the real deal?

DarkestRose
05-29-2007, 09:19 PM
I suppose the same way that people who get married and have the ceremony can tell. I

can't imagine that people know one-hundred percent that this is The One just because they have a wedding party and are legally wed.

I suppose it is just in the resolve a couple has to stay together.

skynes
05-29-2007, 11:46 PM
how do we know when a commitment is the real deal?

How do we know when someone ELSES commitment is? Or how do we know if OURS is?

For your own, you know your intentions. Are you acting on your emotions? That lovey dovey infatuation? Or has that passed and your intentions still remain the same?


For other peoples.... Well, how can you tell if they're saved? Not as if there is a piece of paper you get confirming it. I suppose the best way to be to watch how they act toward their other, how they treat them. Are they really working toward one another? Working for each others benefit? Or are they just in it for pleasure?

Sometimes those who aren't serious are really obvious about their intentions.

somasoul
05-30-2007, 04:17 AM
I've known kids who did the whole "sexbeforemarriageisokay becausewe'reinloveandgoingtogetmarriedandwe're commitedtoeachothernowandforeveryadayadayadayada.. ...." thing and it didn't work out.

Is it possible? Absolutly. (I've done it. Sorta.) But I wouldn't recommend it.

skynes
05-30-2007, 04:34 AM
sexbeforemarriageisokay becausewe'reinloveandgoingtogetmarriedandwe're commitedtoeachothernowandforeveryadayadayadayada.. ...."

It is a stupid idea... I wouldnt recommend it either.

DarkestRose
05-30-2007, 07:43 AM
I've been reading the Marriage and Dating link that Skynes posted a few pages back. It's actually pretty good. I was going to print it but my printer said it was going to be 85-pages, so I'm reading in small sections on the computer.

skynes
05-30-2007, 08:24 AM
I've been reading the Marriage and Dating link that Skynes posted a few pages back. It's actually pretty good. I was going to print it but my printer said it was going to be 85-pages, so I'm reading in small sections on the computer.

ROFL!! It is actually an e-book, so I'm not surprised its that length.

DarkestRose
05-30-2007, 08:36 AM
Oh, I can tell it's an e-book now. *sigh*