|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:04 pm
In light of all these infidelity scandals with Tiger Woods and Jesse James (Sandra Bullock's husband), I wonder about the sanctity of marriage in modern society. Of course, my concerns are nothing new. Ever since that statistic of 50% of all American marriages ending in divorce, everyone has become a skeptic.
In the book of Corinthians...somewhere (I've never been good at quoting the Bible, but everything I state is in there)...Paul says it's better that we do not marry, but if we can't "control ourselves" then it is better that we marry.
To me, marriage is a spiritual and religiously-endorsed agreement that let's people express themselves sexually without contempt from others (and make babies!) because, let's be honest Good Marriage-sex=Awesome BFFL's. Also, the only legitimate reasons for a divorce/remarrying as written in our Bible is death of a spouse or infidelity (So, everyone who divorced based on "irreconcilable differences" epic failed at marriage?)
Are we being overly critical of these celebrities, politicians, and even our own parents for despising them for their infidelities or filing divorce?
Have we as a society given up on putting in the effort to keep our marriages strong, seeing them as hit-or-miss arrangements that can be voided? (Or could this be just apart of the Big Guy's plan to get us to stop procreating and focus more on him????<--sorry, tangent).
Most importantly, what is your opinion of long time couples who stay in committed monogamous relationships (for 20+ years) but never marry. Are they sinners, too, for not having gone through the pomp and circumstance of a modern day wedding ceremony even if in every other sense of the way, they treat one another like husband and wife.
Finally, and just because I like picking everyone's brain here, if marriage was initially created to quell our sexual desires in the midst of our journey to find God, are Civil Unions then legitimized?
(Note: I support gay marriage regardless of whether or not it's endorsed by my faith. Everyone should love and be loved. rolleyes ).
Let the discussion ensue!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:39 pm
For the Celebrity question I must say it is a hard question to answer, really, as we do not ever really know (unlike whatever the media suggests) what the real circumstances are. EVER.
Only god knows, and truthfully after a few thousand years of this, I think he knows what he is doing. So I suggest that we just let him do what does best. Maybe put a prayer in every once in a while.
As to your question on society, I hate to say it but from my view point as a high schooler in the south certainly points to a degradation. It’s come to the point where I start to expect new kids to have 2-3 stepparents. Real stats on the matter don’t help either; estimates as high 50% of parents have divorced once in America are not uncommon in polls. I was taken back by the figures. Made me support gay marriage, but that's another story.
Next, as for the unmarried couples, well, wait... where is the problem? Isn't one of the grounds of marriage a firm friendship? Is it a sin they like to spend all their time with a person of opposite sex? If it was a sin then every boy and girl in high school should bring in a lamb and have the high priest slaughter it for forgiveness. Get with the times people.
And on to one of the most (stupidly) debated topic in modern Christianity, Gay marriage. Again, where is the problem? Jesus doesn't hate people because they are gay, because Jesus doesn't hate anyone. He loves all. If someone love a bit differently but still tries to do it in the same pure way, should they be appladed, insteaded of rioted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:35 am
I asked the "umarried, but committed" question because I've received a lot of flack from religious people for accepting such a relationship on par with marriage (minus the tax breaks xp ).But I guess such a matter of tradition v. principle, or religion v. faith can be debated in numerous aspects of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:20 pm
Gjornia X I asked the "umarried, but committed" question because I've received a lot of flack from religious people for accepting such a relationship on par with marriage (minus the tax breaks xp ).But I guess such a matter of tradition v. principle, or religion v. faith can be debated in numerous aspects of Christianity. Frankly it is a waste of time fueled by the devil. We become so focused on this one isuse that we lose sight of the big picture. If you don't belive it's so look in the bible, the pharisees did much the same thing, the only defrence being the subject. And we all know where there single-mindedness led. God made us to love, not to scrutinize everyone. I don't say this much, but I hate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:39 pm
Personally I do see the ceremony nessicary for one reason; Witnesses.
It's one thing to make a commitment to someone where nobody can see, but it's another to make that commitment before others and, most importantly, God.
Do I believe that a couple can make a binding commitment to each other before God in the privacy of their bedroom without getting "Married" in the traditional sense? Yes, I see that it's possible. I think that only God can define marriage as He created it, and I don't know if anywhere in the Bible it gives guidelines for what constitutes a marriage.
And, also, what I find interesting is how people say a divorce is justified if the partner was unfaithful. But the passage reads anyone who divorces their wife, except for unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress. If she was unfaithful she made herself into an adulteress, so you can't "cause her to become" what she already made herself into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:38 pm
Honestly? I see marriage as a legal union where the government tells you that you're somehow better than singles because your love has been approved by them. Nothing more. I don't plan on ever getting married.
If you are in love, the Lord will know.
If you are committed, the Lord will know.
In my opinion, the marriage is not required, only the sincerity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:42 pm
On the subject of Paul's discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians, I actually JUST GOT DONE DISCUSSING THIS in my Pauline Letters class, and I found it all fascinating. Begin wall o' text:
So Paul is fairly convinced Jesus will be returning within in his lifetime, which is what so many of his instruction involve remaining pure. Since Jesus is coming back, it would be silly to enter into a marriage, because the end will be coming soon. The only reason you should get married is if you can't restrain yourself. Interestingly, the passage that follows about divorce is actually less about divorce and more about sex. Some of the Corinthian women were taking vows of celibacy even though they were married. Paul was arguing that, unless both partners are on the same page about celibacy, man and woman shouldn't be separated because then it would present temptation to the non-celibate partner, and lead to sin. So really, Paul is in favor of having sex! Hooray!
As for my own personal views of marriage, I believe in a spiritual marriage. I believe that it occurs whenever the couple makes the commitment to be together, and the ceremony is just a representation of a commitment that has already been made. I also believe it's an accountability thing, so that those present will hold you to your vows. I do think an engaged couple is just as married in God's eyes as a couple who just signed the licence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:06 pm
My personal take is that Paul hated marriage. I mean marriage back in the ancient world was pretty nasty when you think about it. It had nothing to do with love, purely economics. Wives became property of their husbands, husbands were responsible for various legal obligations concerning wives...
I'm going to be a little biased since I see Paul in the light of my tradition but if my tradition is true then he was having difficulty trying to teach people to transcend sexual desires, (not repress them) in the Prostitution capital of the ancient world. He basically advised marriage to lessen the temptation of running off with prostitutes and giving into to the common form of entertainment of the day (it's not like they had TV, ya'll) while neglecting their spiritual development for the return of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:59 pm
As plenty probably know, I've never been a big fan of Paul. Now, this doesn't mean I don't listen to what he says when God is actually speaking through him. However, that verse you explained is exactly why I don't like him. In it he also says that people should be like him and never marry, and then, as you said, implies it's just so they can tame their sexual desire without sinning.
That, to me, is a load of crap, because God loves love. Marriage is not about sex, it is about love, and two people loving each other so much, that they want to be committed forever before God. They want to make a promise to never stray, and be there no matter what, among the many legal benefits.
Honestly, I think that God cares more about true, sincere love, than an actual marriage.
I really don't feel marriage was created to stop the sexual desires, I just feel overly critical people like Paul saw it that way. I can understand that the focus should always be on God, and God should always be first and most important, but that doesn't mean a married couple can love God any less. Some people are just better and stronger as a couple, and their SO make them stronger.
And honestly, I don't think a civil union is at all different from a marriage. It's just wording to shut up the fundies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:34 pm
violette lumineux As plenty probably know, I've never been a big fan of Paul. Now, this doesn't mean I don't listen to what he says when God is actually speaking through him. However, that verse you explained is exactly why I don't like him. In it he also says that people should be like him and never marry, and then, as you said, implies it's just so they can tame their sexual desire without sinning.
That, to me, is a load of crap, because God loves love. Marriage is not about sex, it is about love, and two people loving each other so much, that they want to be committed forever before God. They want to make a promise to never stray, and be there no matter what, among the many legal benefits.
Honestly, I think that God cares more about true, sincere love, than an actual marriage.
I really don't feel marriage was created to stop the sexual desires, I just feel overly critical people like Paul saw it that way. I can understand that the focus should always be on God, and God should always be first and most important, but that doesn't mean a married couple can love God any less. Some people are just better and stronger as a couple, and their SO make them stronger.
And honestly, I don't think a civil union is at all different from a marriage. It's just wording to shut up the fundies. See I understand and agree, though I should point out that marriage for love is a relatively new concept. Marriage back in Paul's day was mainly economic. Women in the Roman legal system were on equal footing with children and chattel. If I was living in Paul's day, I'd be very much against marriage since I would be basically putting my wife and myself into a state endorsed slavery. The only issue with civil unions is that they are not regarded legally the same as marriage and the benefits conferred to married people are not given to those in civil unions. The solution I see would be to separate legal and religious marriages. Where legal marriage is something regulated by the State conveying the benefits of marriage to married couples and religious marriage is run by religion conveying whatever benefits or recognitions a religious organization gives to married people completely independent from legal marriagee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:35 pm
rmcdra violette lumineux As plenty probably know, I've never been a big fan of Paul. Now, this doesn't mean I don't listen to what he says when God is actually speaking through him. However, that verse you explained is exactly why I don't like him. In it he also says that people should be like him and never marry, and then, as you said, implies it's just so they can tame their sexual desire without sinning.
That, to me, is a load of crap, because God loves love. Marriage is not about sex, it is about love, and two people loving each other so much, that they want to be committed forever before God. They want to make a promise to never stray, and be there no matter what, among the many legal benefits.
Honestly, I think that God cares more about true, sincere love, than an actual marriage.
I really don't feel marriage was created to stop the sexual desires, I just feel overly critical people like Paul saw it that way. I can understand that the focus should always be on God, and God should always be first and most important, but that doesn't mean a married couple can love God any less. Some people are just better and stronger as a couple, and their SO make them stronger.
And honestly, I don't think a civil union is at all different from a marriage. It's just wording to shut up the fundies. See I understand and agree, though I should point out that marriage for love is a relatively new concept. Marriage back in Paul's day was mainly economic. Women in the Roman legal system were on equal footing with children and chattel. If I was living in Paul's day, I'd be very much against marriage since I would be basically putting my wife and myself into a state endorsed slavery. The only issue with civil unions is that they are not regarded legally the same as marriage and the benefits conferred to married people are not given to those in civil unions. The solution I see would be to separate legal and religious marriages. Where legal marriage is something regulated by the State conveying the benefits of marriage to married couples and religious marriage is run by religion conveying whatever benefits or recognitions a religious organization gives to married people completely independent from legal marriagee.
Yeah, that seems a bit more fair. It's not fair that the religious get married and have legal benefits, but then they say homosexual marriage isn't marriage because it's not religious, and so they don't get what they get. But to me, it's not about the benefits, anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Quote: the only legitimate reasons for a divorce/remarrying as written in our Bible is death of a spouse or infidelity (So, everyone who divorced based on "irreconcilable differences" epic failed at marriage?) while i don't agree with divorce over "irreconcilable differences", it is a damn shame to be trapped in a loveless marriage. i would say that the solution would have to be a change in how we approach Marriage. traditions and policies we have even to this day are from a time long ago when it wasn't much up to choice, leastways for the woman, and arguably for the man as well. the idea behind marrying young, and traditions and superstitions such as not seeing the Bride before the Wedding, were meant to make it easier to accept that you are about to be Bound for Life to someone you don't very well know!it's an outdated approach, and needs to change. also, i'm sure there are behavioral hints dropped everywhere in Jesus' teachings making it obvious that Men shouldn't abuse their Wives, and that should be grounds enough in any civilized society, for divorce! Quote: Are we being overly critical of these celebrities, politicians, and even our own parents for despising them for their infidelities or filing divorce? i think it depends on the individual, and can only be answered on a case by case basis. however, i have noticed that media bias and social bias tend to be disgusting in my eyes... that gets me alot of smack... Quote: Have we as a society given up on putting in the effort to keep our marriages strong, seeing them as hit-or-miss arrangements that can be voided? (Or could this be just apart of the Big Guy's plan to get us to stop procreating and focus more on him????<--sorry, tangent). obviously, people don't put in the proper effort. marriage isn't taken as seriously as it should be anymore. it's seen as some kind of right, rather than a responcibility, and people don't take the time to be certain that they've purchased the right Spouse. if nobody married until they'd already been living togeher for at least a year, we'd see alot less divorces. Quote: Most importantly, what is your opinion of long time couples who stay in committed monogamous relationships (for 20+ years) but never marry. Are they sinners, too, for not having gone through the pomp and circumstance of a modern day wedding ceremony even if in every other sense of the way, they treat one another like husband and wife. do you realy think God cares if you had a fancy Ceremony? rolleyes Quote: Finally, and just because I like picking everyone's brain here, if marriage was initially created to quell our sexual desires in the midst of our journey to find God, are Civil Unions then legitimized? of course they are! but see, that isn't enough. LGBT LifeMates should have ALL the legal benefits AND acknowledgement as Hetero Couples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:45 pm
rmcdra The solution I see would be to separate legal and religious marriages. Where legal marriage is something regulated by the State conveying the benefits of marriage to married couples and religious marriage is run by religion conveying whatever benefits or recognitions a religious organization gives to married people completely independent from legal marriagee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:13 pm
freelance lover rmcdra The solution I see would be to separate legal and religious marriages. Where legal marriage is something regulated by the State conveying the benefits of marriage to married couples and religious marriage is run by religion conveying whatever benefits or recognitions a religious organization gives to married people completely independent from legal marriagee. Well if it's any hope there's a number of Episcopal preists I know personally that want this as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:51 pm
rmcdra freelance lover rmcdra The solution I see would be to separate legal and religious marriages. Where legal marriage is something regulated by the State conveying the benefits of marriage to married couples and religious marriage is run by religion conveying whatever benefits or recognitions a religious organization gives to married people completely independent from legal marriagee. Well if it's any hope there's a number of Episcopal preists I know personally that want this as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
