what defines marriage?

[(Q)]

different people having different interpretations is not cherry picking. moron.

There is no interpretation of you having sex out of wedlock, Lori. It is clear cut and you have sinned. Your marriage is a sham in the eyes of your god. You have defiled your marriage bed. Sorry to see you burn for it.

 

[(Q)]

a personal relationship with god that renders religion and secular contracts obsolete is what i aspire to, and what i believe is attainable through christ. and i believe his kingdom will be void of any such things.

So, now it's a personal relationship and the bible is obsolete? Hypocrite.

 

[(Q)]

I see what Lori's getting at:

But a Christian wedding ceremony can be annulled if there is no consummation. The sex itself is the marriage - the ceremony is meaningless without it.

One comes before the other. The consummation takes place AFTER they have been betrothed. If before, they have defiled the marriage bed and will be judged harshly.

The bible doesn't lie about these things. Lori does.

 

[(Q)]

you're the one ignoring the bible. i gave you a huge list of scripture on marriage and you still can't site one that substantiates what you're talking about.

Could you be more blatant with your lie?

You gave me a list of scriptures. YOU DID NOT point out any scriptures that supported your fornication out of wedlock as being acceptable, however the very first verse on that list was this:

" Hebrews 13:4

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."

I really don't see how this can be any clearer, Lori.

 

[S.A.M.]

The Acts and Corinthians bits are from the NT.

Both items, however, are the words of Paul, rather than the words of Jesus. If you are looking for specific quotes from Jesus, I'll limit to the first four books of the NT, and not include Paul letters or Revelations. We're left with fairly little.

(Matthew 5:31-32) “It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”

(Matthew 15:19-20) "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

(Mark 7:21-23) "For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' ""

(John 4:17-18), -"He (Jesus) said to her, "Go call your husband, and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her. "You have well said, I have no husband' for you have had five husbands; and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." (she was living with a guy, but not married to him)


as an aside, while looking these up, I came across another OT line, which clearly denotes the separation between sex and marriage:
(Ex. 22:16). "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17: If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins"


Now, Jesus didn't completely get rid of the old (Hebrew) rules. He said that he didn't come to get rid of the law, but to fullfill the law. this leads to the confusing state of much of the old rules no longer applying, but others sticking around. Paul makes it clear that he still considers the OT's rules on sex and marriage as being valid, though not all the OT practices (like plural marriage) is acceptable.

From all your quotes, it seems to me its about the intent of sex. Breaking a promise to an existing spouse is not permitted, which seems to cover both prostitution and adultery, nor is sex for the sake of sex but from Ex 22:16, it would appear that sleeping with a maiden one intends to betroth does not seem to constitute sin

“It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement

What does this refer to? Where hath it been said? In which people was divorce permitted?

 

[Lori_7]

Could you be more blatant with your lie?

You gave me a list of scriptures. YOU DID NOT point out any scriptures that supported your fornication out of wedlock as being acceptable, however the very first verse on that list was this:

" Hebrews 13:4

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."

I really don't see how this can be any clearer, Lori.

it is clear. it says that marriage should be held in honor among all, and even goes so far as to call it "the marriage bed", but does not define what "marriage" is. it in no way makes reference to a ceremony, it makes reference to a bed, and then goes on to say that it is unlawful to have SEX outside of this relationship. i would suggest more than a relationship...a covenant between a man, woman, and god with laws in regards to submission, sex, and commitment. it never states in the bible that a ceremony is required for two people to be married. quite the opposite actually.

Genesis 24:67

Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.


does that sound like a ceremony to you? because to me it sounds like sex in a tent.

 

[Lori_7]

But the sex happens after the couple is considered married. She is called his wife before they have sex.

The Talmud is clear about sex outside of marriage as sinful - what is your take on that?

so does the bible, but it does not define marriage to be dependent upon a religious ceremony taking place. it actually defines marriage to be dependent upon sex.

I think that makes a marriage according to the culture we are talking about.

well it's not good enough for me.

What about a couple unable to have sex due to physical malady? Are they unable to actually get married because of their lack of physical ability?

i think there's a lot more to two becoming one in the flesh than just sex.

I'd say that is love, and is wholly independent from marriage.

it shouldn't be.

That's great. But that has little to do with what constitutes marriage, does it? unless you are stating that you feel that marriage is a secular contract that should be eliminated.

i just think that religion and secular contracts, and a host of institutions will be made obsolete because they're not necessary, because people actually will know god, and love each other. people won't need religion because they have god, and god is not religion. we won't need contracts or money because no one will ever lie, and no one will be greedy. we'll actually do the right thing and take care of each other. what a concept right?

 

[Lori_7]

The Catholic church is a body of interpretation, like the Talmud. But what does Christianity say about marriage?

the bible says that partners shouldn't be unequally yoked, referring to their faith in god.

but it doesn't seem to differentiate between religion, or culture, or race. it only seems to differentiate when it comes to sex.

this pretty much sums it up...

Exodus 22:16

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife."

or paraphrased, "you break it, you buy it."

and this is stated more than once...

Luke 16:18

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

which basically says that god's law has no regard for what man might say about his own actions. and again it references sex by citing adultery.

 

[(Q)]

i would suggest more than a relationship...

Yes, you would suggest that because it is a feeble attempt to wiggle out off your sin against your god.

it never states in the bible that a ceremony is required for two people to be married. quite the opposite actually.

And, how convenient that is for you.

does that sound like a ceremony to you? because to me it sounds like sex in a tent.

So, then any Christian can have sex with anyone they want at any time before being married? Is that correct?

 

[Lori_7]

So, now it's a personal relationship and the bible is obsolete? Hypocrite.

the bible is not religion, but perhaps, like choosing to read an old book about someone that you can now spend 24 hours a day with, and have a relationship with, and the book is set in a different age...a dark age even.

 

[Lori_7]

Yes, you would suggest that because it is a feeble attempt to wiggle out off your sin against your god.



And, how convenient that is for you.



So, then any Christian can have sex with anyone they want at any time before being married? Is that correct?

if you HAVE sex, you ARE married. and any form of denial of that is WRONG.

and it wasn't convenient for me. i still had 2 ceremonies. one religious and one secular, but neither of those ceremonies changed the fact that i was married to him.

this isn't rocket science Q. you don't have to reference religion as your source of stupidity from now on. phew! what a relief huh?!

 

[(Q)]

if you HAVE sex, you ARE married. and any form of denial of that is WRONG.

Hilarious. Sex = marriage. LOL!

this isn't rocket science Q. you don't have to reference religion as your source of stupidity from now on. phew! what a relief huh?!

Considering that religion IS one of the ultimate sources of stupidity, it's like shooting apples in a barrel.

 

[Lori_7]

Hilarious. Sex = marriage. LOL!

it's not that funny.

Considering that religion IS one of the ultimate sources of stupidity, it's like shooting apples in a barrel.

you're so talented.

 

[river-wind]

if you HAVE sex, you ARE married. and any form of denial of that is WRONG.

But this line of logic precludes adultery, something that is mentioned repeatedly in both the old and new testaments. If a married man has sex with a protitute, according to this, he has not committed adultery, but simply now has two wives.

This is not the case, however, given Jesus' phrasing to the one woman who had five husbands, but does not in fact have one husband, it seems clear that while having sex is *supposed* to happen within the confines of marriage, it often happens outside of it. If sex can happen outside of marriage, then sex cannot create a new marriage simply by occurring.


(Q), while I agree with your point, and I can understand the source of your frustration, you're being quite obnoxious.

 

[Lori_7]

But this line of logic precludes adultery, something that is mentioned repeatedly in both the old and new testaments. If a married man has sex with a protitute, according to this, he has not committed adultery, but simply now has two wives.

This is not the case, however, given Jesus' phrasing to the one woman who had five husbands, but does not in fact have one husband, it seems clear that while having sex is *supposed* to happen within the confines of marriage, it often happens outside of it. If sex can happen outside of marriage, then sex cannot create a new marriage simply by occurring.


(Q), while I agree with your point, and I can understand the source of your frustration, you're being quite obnoxious.

the scripture indicates to me that if you have sex with someone, then they are your spouse until death, and if you have sex with anyone else, then you're committing adultery. if you're having sex with no intentions of being a spouse, then you're fornicating. and if you shack up with someone else and your spouse decides to shack up with someone else too because of it, then you are causing your spouse to commit adultery. and the scripture indicates that it doesn't matter what we say about it either...whether we call ourselves married or divorced according to religious standards or secular contracts doesn't matter.

 

[phlogistician]

does that sound like a ceremony to you? because to me it sounds like sex in a tent.

Lori, marriage vows use similar phrasing;

'Do you take [blah] to be your ...'

'Taking' is not fucking them at the altar. Taking is not sex. Taking is the vow of marriage.

That quote from Genesis sounds like he 'took' Rebekah, ie married her, then he 'loved' her. IE, married, then shagged, in that order.

You are interpreting scripture for your own convenience and to excuse your sins. IE, you're a typical hypocritical Christian.

 

[Lori_7]

Lori, marriage vows use similar phrasing;

'Do you take [blah] to be your ...'

'Taking' is not fucking them at the altar. Taking is not sex. Taking is the vow of marriage.

That quote from Genesis sounds like he 'took' Rebekah, ie married her, then he 'loved' her. IE, married, then shagged, in that order.

You are interpreting scripture for your own convenience and to excuse your sins. IE, you're a typical hypocritical Christian.

No you are interpreting scripture for your own concenience because there was no altar, there was a tent. And those wedding vows people recite in church or in court aren't in the bible either, nor is the mandate for any such ceremony.

Do you honestly think that god can not differentiate between a stupid ceremony (they make reality TV shows out of them now you know), and a covenant made between himself and 2 people?

Because all he has to do is check the divorce stats.

Because you don't believe in god you think that religion IS god, but religion is NOT god, and ceremonies DON'T replace covenants, and rituals DON'T replace what they symbolically represent.

 

[Lori_7]

Lori, marriage vows use similar phrasing;

'Do you take [blah] to be your ...'

'Taking' is not fucking them at the altar. Taking is not sex. Taking is the vow of marriage.

That quote from Genesis sounds like he 'took' Rebekah, ie married her, then he 'loved' her. IE, married, then shagged, in that order.

You are interpreting scripture for your own convenience and to excuse your sins. IE, you're a typical hypocritical Christian.

AND you have a hell of a lot of nerve preaching to me about sin. you don't know the first thing about it because you're blind...purposefully.

well i'm not blind. like i said, the reprocussions of sex was why i questioned the existence of god in the first place, and i knocked, and i sought, and i FOUND. it was god who taught me what i know; i'm not just blindly regurgitating shit out of a book to try to make myself look right.

you're talking to someone who didn't have the answers when i was younger and ended up hurting myself and other people because of it. a child of divorced parents. a woman raised in a society that treats sex like candy or a fun form of aerobic exercise. something to barter with...to buy and fucking sell. someone who has had an abortion, and one train wreck of a marriage and a divorce.

SO I KNOW that every day around me there are people who don't equate sex with a marriage, and who don't equate a marriage with a covenant. i see the pain they go through, and i know that pain. people get married in churches every day who don't know god, don't want to know him, and don't know the first thing about him, and have no intention of including him in their marriage, much less make a covenant with him over it. i mean for god's sake they just fucked the best man in the coat closet, or a prostitute at the bachelor party right?

this world is so fucking fake. and religion is so fucking fake! and THAT my friend, is CONVENIENT FOR YOU. but i'm not.

 

[Lori_7]

AND because of what god has taught me, and the fact that i take it very seriously, i not only didn't equate my marriage to a ceremony, i also was celibate for 8 years prior to my marriage.

you think that was convenient phlog?

only if you compare it to fucking around with whomever i choose whenever i choose for those 8 years, and then eventually jumping up on an altar and reciting some bullshit with one of them, that i'm ready to back out of the moment i don't get my way in the relationship. you know, like the majority of people do.

convenient. that is just really fucking rich.
:facepalm:

 

[phlogistician]

Yes, Lori, you are using a convenient interpretation to salve the wounds of the car wreck that has been your life.

And it seems you banged your head in that wreck, and are still suffering from delusions.

You don't have a relationship with God. You aren't special. You're just damaged goods looking for a way to make herself feel better. It's quite sad.