 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > What is marriage? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/8/2004 10:30 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
I quoted from both Webster's and Thayer's Greek Lexicon to establish that the concept is exactly the same in both biblical Greek and in modern English.
Sorry. I'm a big fat stupid head. Ok, fine. A skinny, lanky stupid head. I truly feel like a dork.
I don't want to get into a my-lexicon-is-fatter-than-yours fight, but mine is pretty fat (read: comprehensive, scholarly, or keen), and it says nothing about premarital sex, at least not that I could find, so there is a case to be made. I'm not even fully convinced; it just sorta rings true. (Any Orson Scott Card fans out there?... I didn't think so.)
BTW, it was a Zepplin quote from "Ramblin' On". I thought you old folks would get that one. Seriously. Negative fifty points for all of you. (Any Led Zepplin fans out there?... I didn't think so.)
So, in conclusion, my head is dumb and stupid. (Any Strong Bad fans out there?... I didn't think so.)
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2004 3:27 AM (GMT -6) | | (Zach lent his laptop to an intranet at some zoo's monkey house. They are working on Shakespeare, but only got that far.)
Did I understand any of that? I don't think so. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/9/2004 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE said:
Merriam Webster defines "chaste" as:
1. Pure from unlawful sexual intercourse; virtuous; continent.
So married people are in fact considered chaste, so long as they do not engage in unlawful sexual intercourse.
Jesus said:
"It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
[32] But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Semeia:
More than half of all marriages end in divorce. Most of those people get remarried. A divorced and remarried person is not considered chaste by Jesus, unless they do not engage in any intercourse, since Jesus says clearly that sex with a remarried person is ADULTERY, and therefore unlawful. (By his words it is clear that he assumes the remarried person is having sex with their spouse – adultery is about sex.) But note that Jesus does not come up with a new legalism forbidding divorce – he just reminds people (as he does throughout that whole sermon) that those people who think that they are chaste, who think that they keep the law, are sorely mistaken.
Why do we so clearly see that it is the most loving thing to allow divorced people to remarry (even though Jesus himself says it is adulterous), and yet we refuse to see that it is the most loving thing to allow gays to marry? Why do we overlook our own “unlawful” sexual intercourse, our own lack of chastity, and yet refuse others the same grace?
John, how do you deal with the above statement by Jesus?
JEE said:
quote:
quote by Sahid:
I think there is a case to be made for "premarital" sex not being immoral if there is commitment, and there are no other partners.
Attempting to rationalize sleeping with one's girlfriend by no means justifies it in the sight of God.
Semeia:
Attempting to rationalize sleeping with one’s divorced and remarried spouse by no means justifies it in the sight of God.
But then again God is used to humans missing the mark, and he loves us anyway.
I would argue that someone who sleeps with their girlfriend, but never leaves her, thereby becoming common law spouses after seven years, is actually missing the mark less than the divorced person who breaks their promise of “til death do us part” and then remarries, promising the next spouse the same thing. In the first case the boyfriend and girlfriend stay true to each other, in the second case the husband and wife do not.
Either way, life is messy and we all need a constant flow of grace from God and others for the ways that we miss the mark every day.
JEE said:
One has to truly wonder how you would define fornication and divorce.
Semeia:
One has to truly wonder how YOU would define fornication and divorce. Jesus said how HE defines it: remarriage is an adulterous relationship – an unlawful sexual relationship. Why do people forgive their own unlawful relationships while telling others how terrible their relationships (with gay or premarital sex) are in the sight of God?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2004 5:57 AM (GMT -6) | | NO ONE IS A CHURCH UNTO THEMSELVES.
If you asked the Greek Orthodox Archdioces, THEY would say that--unlike the Roman Catholics--that remarriage is allowed, a first, second, and perhaps third time (but never a fourth), with the stipulation that there is repentance, discipleship, and examination by the Church (a committee) to attend to the problems that led to divorce, and its damages.
quote:
Marriage, Divorce, and Mixed Marriages
Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians who marry must marry in the Church in order to be in sacramental communion with the Church. According to the Church canons, an Orthodox who marries outside the Church may not receive Holy Communion and may not serve as a sponsor, i.e. a Godparent at a Baptism, or as a sponsor at a Wedding. Certain marriages are prohibited by canon law, such as a marriage between fist and second cousins, or between a Godparent and a Godchild. The fist marriage of a man and a woman is honored by the Church with a richly symbolic service that eloquently speaks to everyone regarding the married state. The form of the service calls upon God to unite the couple through the prayer of the priest or bishop officiating.
The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical recognition of divorce. The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.
Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry.
Though the Church would prefer that all Orthodox Christians would marry Orthodox Christians, it does not insist on it in practice. Out of its concern for the spiritual welfare of members who wish to marry a non-Orthodox Christian, the Church will conduct a "mixed marriage." For this purpose, a "non-Orthodox Christian" is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the many Protestant Churches which believe in and baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. This means that such mixed marriages may be performed in the Orthodox Church. However, the Orthodox Church does not perform marriages between Orthodox Christians and persons belonging to other religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any sectarian and cult group, such as Christian Science, Mormonism, or the followers of Rev. Moon.
www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp
OCA Diocess says: "The Order of the Second or Third Marriage is somewhat different than that celebrated as a first marriage and it bears a penitential character. Second or third marriages are performed by "economy" -- that is, out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule, so to speak. "
"Economy, concern, care are reasons. Not license. And there is no "license" based on comparing one sin with another. There is only God's grace for the cause of his people's salvation that is relevant.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2004 6:02 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2004 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | MOVIE TIME!
Featured Videos -
Sexual Purity: Purity of Mind, Body, and Soul
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/9/2004 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
John, it seems like your definition just passes the buck. Now instead of porneia, we need a definition of unlawful.
First, it's not "my" definition. In all cases, sin is a transgression of the law. This is true in both Old and New Testaments.
quote:
The Old Testament is very specific in describing ways to do sex wrong. It doesn't mention premarital sex except to say that the man should legally marry the woman.
But doesn't it stipulate punishment for unchastity? Punishment is never pronounced for anything other than a transgression of the law.
quote:
If we are to hold to that law today, a man would need to pay the father of the bride for his wife. Since we no longer trade women like property, I don't think we should do that. I think there may be good reason to take from these verses that we should make our marriages public, but that doesn't require a legal document or a religious ceremony.
We must always seek to discern the difference between that which is a transcultural truth and that which is a cultural stipulation. Dowries, etc., would seem to be cultural, for they are not anywhere explicitly required in the New Testament.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/9/2004 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
P.S.: I should hasten to add that I have no interest in another fruitless debate over whether or not men having sex with men is sinful in the eyes of God. God has spoken completely clearly on the subject, and I have nothing to add.
In YOUR opinion it may be fruitless but do NOT say you know the absolutes of God. If only life were that easy that there were always absolutes. Sorry, John, life is NOT made of absolutes so I personally appreciate debates and open discussions on ALL subjects (especially if they are pertinent in our world today)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/9/2004 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm not interested in what the sloppy-thinking relativistic humanist of our day has to say about morals. The question is and will always be, "What does the LORD say?"
You're interested in what the Lord has to say. I will tell you what the Lord would do if he were here walking and living among us in our present day world. He would be VERY interested in what the "sloppy-thinking relativistic humanist" has to say -- in fact he would probably use one of "those" type of people in a parable when discussing the 'Good Samaritan'. What type of believer do you think he would use as the Pharisee and the religious leader?
We need to be VERY interested in what is happening in the world around us and what type of issues people are wrestling with. Closing our minds is NOT the answer to loving and accepting people where they are at.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/9/2004 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | I make no apologies for holding to the bible either. I do believe that walking with Christ and holding to the bible is loving people right where they are at and taking an interest in THEIR world. It is possible, afterall, to love people just as they are without compromising the bible. In fact, we love people the way the bible tells us to when we love people where they are at and in so doing we are NOT compromising the bible.
Homosexuality is part of our society. Sexual immorality is part of our society. Lying and cheating is part of our society. Gossiping is part of our society. Prejudice is part of our society. Basically sin (missing the mark) is part of the world we live in. We are called to love people with the imperfections and blemishes they have because we ALL have imperfections and fall short of deserving salvation.
So you see, John, we seem to both make no apologies for holding to the truth of the bible but I wonder if we are holding to different truths? I hold to the truth of loving God with all of my heart and loving my neighbor as myself. I hold to the truth of allowing God to be God hence leaving the judging to God. This is the gospel message to me. I have no apologies either for holding to the bible. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/9/2004 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Do you think murder is wrong?
I believe it was Sahid who had a great explanation to this question. Murder is wrong -- it imposes on the freewill of other people. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2004 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
I make no apologies for holding to the bible either. I do believe that walking with Christ and holding to the bible is loving people right where they are at and taking an interest in THEIR world. It is possible, afterall, to love people just as they are without compromising the bible. In fact, we love people the way the bible tells us to when we love people where they are at and in so doing we are NOT compromising the bible.
Homosexuality is part of our society. Sexual immorality is part of our society. Lying and cheating is part of our society. Gossiping is part of our society. Prejudice is part of our society. Basically sin (missing the mark) is part of the world we live in. We are called to love people with the imperfections and blemishes they have because we ALL have imperfections and fall short of deserving salvation.
So you see, John, we seem to both make no apologies for holding to the truth of the bible but I wonder if we are holding to different truths? I hold to the truth of loving God with all of my heart and loving my neighbor as myself. I hold to the truth of allowing God to be God hence leaving the judging to God. This is the gospel message to me. I have no apologies either for holding to the bible.
The LAST time this was hashed, the false dichotomy was raised that presupposed that recognizing sin meant invariably a condemnation of the person. I remember many times that the "love the sinner, acknowledge the sin" motif was said over and over, but ignored even to the point of the liberals making condemnatory comments about the ungodly lack of love by those who recognized what Scripture said in the matter.
QUEST, when you say "I wonder if we are holding to different truths? I hold to the truth of loving God with all of my heart and loving my neighbor as myself. I hold to the truth of allowing God to be God hence leaving the judging to God." it appears to my eys that you move very close to judging and condemning John. You seemed to IMPLY that John "judges" and userps God's role. I trust that is not true. You seem to IMPLY -- and you even suggested that John holds to a "different truth" than what is Biblical -- that John does not hold to the truth of "loving God with all of my heart and loving my neighbor as myself",
We are called to carry the burdens
of those wieghed down. God calls them,
sin and all. God is not interested
in their being perfect. God is interested
in perfecting them!
PoW
Let us walk in Love. And let us all be careful to support each other.
Thank you for the affirmations of Love, Quest.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/9/2004 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
loving people includes loving them enough to tell them when something they're doing will destroy them.
Here's where I take issue. I believe that if we begin to point out what people are doing is wrong we will have no time to do much else since there is sin going on everywhere. We all fall short -- do you want people throwing your sin at you every time you fall short? Sin leads to death so ALL sin is destructive but I take issue that we select which sins we will "tolerate" and which sins we will be quick to point out to our brother or sister.
POWquote:
You seemed to IMPLY that John "judges" and userps God's role. I trust that is not true. You seem to IMPLY -- and you even suggested that John holds to a "different truth" than what is Biblical -- that John does not hold to the truth of "loving God with all of my heart and loving my neighbor as myself"
I am reacting to what John wrote to Semeia, "I should hasten to add that I have no interest in another fruitless debate over whether or not men having sex with men is sinful in the eyes of God. God has spoken completely clearly on the subject, and I have nothing to add." This didn't come off as a loving comment. If we close our minds to the world around us, and the relative issues we live with, we are closing out part of the body of Christ.
We can either spend our time focusing on where people are falling short or we can spend our time focusing on how God is working in their life. We can either close our minds to the world we live in or we can spend time looking outside of our own convenient boxes. Jesus came and lived among us in order to establish a relationship. Jesus took an interest in entering into people's lives and dining with them. Jesus was more concerned with loving the person than with keeping the law. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/9/2004 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
One has to seriously wonder, does the "judge not" crowd let known child molesters babysit their children?
Does the "judge not" crowd lock their doors at night? (How judgmental).
Does the "judge not" crowd think Osama bin Laden deserves to die? (How judgmental).
Does the "judge not" crowd ever correct their children if they tell a lie? (How judgmental).
Does the "judge not" crowd think we should bring terrorists to justice? (How judgmental).
Here's the boundary -- if something infringes on the freewill of another, especially if that other is a child, then we are called to stand up for justice. Jesus stood up for the woman caught in adultery by confronting the crowd that was stoning her. Jesus told the disciples to "Let the little children come and do not forbid them" Jesus stood up for justice. This is quite different than pointing out someone's sin because it is defending the freewill of the victim. I hope this gives you an idea when I believe we are called to stand and how this is different from judging. | | Back to Top | | |
| 171 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:10 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|