What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pregnant woman fired for not marrying fiance

Jethro Bodine
I am going to try one time here to make my point...
I wish the vows taken before the Lord had more meaning to those taking them then a piece of paper from the state...With the divorce rate in the churches being what it is we can see , vows taken before the Lord hold little to so many
 
reba said:
Jethro Bodine
I am going to try one time here to make my point...
I wish the vows taken before the Lord had more meaning to those taking them then a piece of paper from the state...With the divorce rate in the churches being what it is we can see , vows taken before the Lord hold little to so many
Click to expand...
sad but true and I don't think in the days of moses it was much better or Jesus' day. why would the Pharisees have asked jesus for his opinion if they didn't see it. the question was what is the valid reason for a divorce.
 
reba said:
Jethro Bodine
I am going to try one time here to make my point...
I wish the vows taken before the Lord had more meaning to those taking them then a piece of paper from the state...With the divorce rate in the churches being what it is we can see , vows taken before the Lord hold little to so many
Click to expand...
The point I'm defending is that for a couple to be considered married and, therefore, their sexual relationship not regarded as immoral is that they must establish some kind of recognizable legal accountability that strengthens their claim that they are indeed committed and responsible to each other as man and wife and not just conveniently using the argument that they are married to rationalize an immoral relationship (I know people doing this). Cousin Eddie doesn't count as that recognizable legal accountability, and it depends on the pastor and the laws of the state/ country you live in whether or not a pastor counts as a recognizable and legal source of accountability.

Two people deciding they want to cover their immoral relationship with a claim they are married just doesn't cut it. That essentially makes all regular immoral heterosexual sexual activity acceptable and removes any accountability that might otherwise exist. The example left by people who do that removes any reservations others might have to not cave in to their own temptations to indulge in immoral sexual activity. It would be a quick ride down for the church from there.

Over the years it has been very discouraging to me to see brothers and sisters who claim the name of Christ to take the easy way out of our common struggle with sin--particularly sexual sin. When we resist sin even to the point of pain and discomfort we serve as a witness and an encouragement to others in their struggle. When we don't do that and we take the easy way out of the struggle with sin we become a source of doubt and discouragement to others. Divorce and easy, unaccountable marriage are biggies. I say that because the responsibility and self control of being sexually are particularly difficult areas of Christian living that require all the help and encouragement other Christians can offer through the witness of their own lives. But when everybody sees them take the easy way out that all goes down the drain.
 
Jethro Bodine said:
Besides your revolt against the government being entirely against Paul's teaching about our relationship to the authorities that govern, I would think that since you're probably not going to leave the country as you should, that you would at least be eager to do what the government does do that is right in protecting marriage. Your rebellion against it is actually contrary to your ideology.
Click to expand...

wpid-875d1374620718t-grom-here-jackie-chan-my-brain-full-fuck-meme-blank-template-lol-wtf.jpeg

chese2.gif
 
Jethro Bodine said:
The point I'm defending is that for a couple to be considered married and, therefore, their sexual relationship not regarded as immoral is that they must establish some kind of recognizable legal accountability that strengthens their claim that they are indeed committed and responsible to each other as man and wife and not just conveniently using the argument that they are married to rationalize an immoral relationship (I know people doing this). Cousin Eddie doesn't count as that recognizable legal accountability, and it depends on the pastor and the laws of the state/ country you live in whether or not a pastor counts as a recognizable and legal source of accountability.
Click to expand...
no dis agreement from me
Two people deciding they want to cover their immoral relationship with a claim they are married just doesn't cut it. That essentially makes all regular immoral heterosexual sexual activity acceptable and removes any accountability that might otherwise exist. The example left by people who do that removes any reservations others might have to not cave in to their own temptations to indulge in immoral sexual activity. It would be a quick ride down for the church from there.
Click to expand...
My thoughts are not that casual... I am/was thinking about a ceremony recorded in a 'church ' setting.. I am not equating marriage to a roll in the hay.

Over the years it has been very discouraging to me to see brothers and sisters who claim the name of Christ to take the easy way out of our common struggle with sin--particularly sexual sin. When we resist sin even to the point of pain and discomfort we serve as a witness and an encouragement to others in their struggle. When we don't do that and we take the easy way out of the struggle with sin we become a source of doubt and discouragement to others. Divorce and easy, unaccountable marriage are biggies. I say that because the responsibility and self control of being sexually are particularly difficult areas of Christian living that require all the help and encouragement other Christians can offer through the witness of their own lives. But when everybody sees them take the easy way out that all goes down the drain.
Click to expand...
This paragraph makes my point... it is a shame we Christians would feel more obligated to government then to God..

Knowing i am not alone in sticking it out in marriage through many rough times i think we Christians who stick it out do so not because of the government laws but because we made a vow before God,,,,

I think we are more on the same page then you see just now...
 
reba said:
no dis agreement from me

My thoughts are not that casual... I am/was thinking about a ceremony recorded in a 'church ' setting.. I am not equating marriage to a roll in the hay.


This paragraph makes my point... it is a shame we Christians would feel more obligated to government then to God..

Knowing i am not alone in sticking it out in marriage through many rough times i think we Christians who stick it out do so not because of the government laws but because we made a vow before God,,,,

I think we are more on the same page then you see just now...
Click to expand...

I wanted to divorce my wife a few years ago. God told me that issue isn't enough and and you hyprocrite. what are you doing that she couldn't say the same about you! ouch but its what he said that has made me hesistate when I ponder it.
 
jasonc said:
I wanted to divorce my wife a few years ago. God told me that issue isn't enough and and you hyprocrite. what are you doing that she couldn't say the same about you! ouch but its what he said that has made me hesistate when I ponder it.
Click to expand...
What a great example of why the vows before God (for a Christian) are so much more powerful than a secular license. The secular license says if you're simply not happy: divorce her. God says that's not the way it's going to work and if you do that, you are in sin! I see God the Father as the all powerful supreme being that is our God and our ruler. If that's who He is, he doesn't need permission from the government for anything!
 
reba said:
My thoughts are not that casual... I am/was thinking about a ceremony recorded in a 'church ' setting.. I am not equating marriage to a roll in the hay.
Click to expand...
If I was a pastor in a common law marriage state and a couple showed me an official, credible church document that showed that they formally stated their honest intention to accept the responsibilities and commitment of marriage I would accept that.

reba said:
I am not equating marriage to a roll in the hay.
Click to expand...
You did not give me the impression that you did. Some here did. But, as I was explaining, I hope people can see how it can be perceived that way by other Christians looking at someone else's 'license-less' marriage from the outside. And so, when they find themselves in the right circumstances to suddenly decide that having sex can be rationalized as a marriage in God's eyes, that is when the freedom of one Christian to get 'married' that way becomes a stumbling block to another.


reba said:
This paragraph makes my point... it is a shame we Christians would feel more obligated to government then to God..
Click to expand...
Think of legitimate marriage like baptism. I believe you can be an honest committed Christian without getting baptized. But the baptism commanded by God lends credibility and accountability to the claim of the person to have decided to be faithful and responsible to Christ. That's what an official recognition of your commitment to marriage outside of yourself does. It isn't essential, but it goes a long way in validating the decision of the parties involved to be committed and responsible and accountable to one another and others regarding their decision. You have to wonder why a 'married' couple would choose to not do that. It's so contrary to what it means to be a Christian who does right because he has faith in God in daily living.


reba said:
Knowing i am not alone in sticking it out in marriage through many rough times i think we Christians who stick it out do so not because of the government laws but because we made a vow before God,,,,
Click to expand...
Again, I would think of it in the same vein as baptism. God shows us he thinks something more than just a decision made in the mind should accompany one's decision to be committed and responsible to him in salvation. Likewise for marriage.

reba said:
I think we are more on the same page then you see just now...
Click to expand...
Well, that's a scary thought, but you're probably right.
 
Obadiah said:
What a great example of why the vows before God (for a Christian) are so much more powerful than a secular license. The secular license says if you're simply not happy: divorce her. God says that's not the way it's going to work and if you do that, you are in sin! I see God the Father as the all powerful supreme being that is our God and our ruler. If that's who He is, he doesn't need permission from the government for anything!
Click to expand...
The power of the document is that it is a reminder mostly to you that you did indeed make a vow before God to function in marraigae the way he commands. A decision made in secret, even before God, is one that is far more likely to fail. I think that's why he commands us to be baptized. Stick your neck out and make yourself accountable to your own word.

In marriage the document is only the outward proof of what's going on inside. That being true, why are some Christians so afraid to get it? I see it like this: The Christian looking up to heaven, hands folded, explaining to God how really, really committed they are to this person they're with and how they honor marriage and everything God says about it, and therefore, don't really need to get the paper. And God says, "then why don't you just get the paper?"
 
Jethro Bodine said:
This is not what I'm resisting. The couple approaches the governing authorities and fills out a form. If I was a pastor in your state I would require that all couples living together attending the church do this or leave the assembly.
Click to expand...
If a pastor presides over a wedding he is the one who files the paperwork in the county where the marriage took place. They sign it, witnesses sign, and the pastor signs. Then he files it.

I agree that whatever the governing authorities of the state statues say,, in the state that they were married in, is what the pastor and the people attending should abide by.
I challenge you to find a pastor in these United States who would break the law by saying that a couple was not married if they married under the law of their state which agrees with the Supreme Court of this United States. He could actually be sued if he did that.
On top of that how would they comply with his demands? If they go to the court house to try to get married again it would not be allowed because they are already legally married. They would have to get a divorce first and then remarry.
Doing that adds something outside of themselves that adds legitimacy to their sexual relationship because it involves taking legal steps to formally announce the purposeful intentions and commitment of both parties (simply having sex is NOT a commitment--good Lord, you women should know that better than anyone).
Click to expand...
You still do not understand the stipulations that are required for someone to be legally married under Common Law. A couple can fulfill the requirements for Common Law marriage and NEVER have a sexual relationship. :eek

What I'm resisting is two people having sex and rationalizing it by just saying they're married. Out in the open that would ruin a church as couples take their example and become tempted to decide after a romantic dinner on the town that they suddenly want to become 'married'. If you catch my drift.
Click to expand...
I do catch your drift. And by the very definition of Common Law marriage, they would not be able to claim that they were married. They would be lying.
SOMETHING has to differentiate the regularly sexually immoral couple from the legitimately married couple. Simply saying you're married is hardly that distinction.
Click to expand...
I agree. Common Law marriage has other requirements attached to. Read the law.
 
Jethro Bodine said:
I used to think that, too. I see now it is only recognized in 9 states. And here I thought my brother in Florida, and my son in Ohio were somehow considered by the state to be married to the women they have been with after 3 years. Not so true after all.
Click to expand...
No you mis-understand the law. Nine states still have legal Common Law marriage, seven others made laws that take in special consideration for religious groups such as the Quakers in PA, because they did that all people can legally also choose that option.
ALL states recognize any legal marriage from another state.
If your friend and your brother were married in a state where Common Law is legal then every other state recognizes those marriages as being legal. They don't have a choice. Per the Supreme Court ruling.

That is why the Supreme Court was being pushed to make a ruling defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. They refused to do it. If they had,, we wouldn't be in this mess with same-sex marriage.
My state tried to get that definition written into our state constitution several yrs. ago but the voters said no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top