Marriage Rejuvenation?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I was not factoring that into my post. Since I was dealing with man and a woman (Aquila and Christine, I think he said her name was), my comments at the end were meant only within that purview.

Therefore, a man and woman, saints of the Most High, getting a marriage license from their local government, are not worse off spiritually in any way for having done so.

I don't think I was saying they'd be worse off for getting a civil marriage. But I thought you were saying they'd be worse off unless they got a civil marriage? And that a civil marriage ipso facto places the couple in a divinely sanctioned state?

Two people claiming marriage but not being married, however, are in a different spot spiritually speaking.

Like two men with a bona fide legal civil marriage? I would agree, such are just claiming marriage, but aren't actually married.

Which raises the question at the root of the whole discussion: What constitutes genuine marriage? And, Does God only sanction those unions which are sanctioned by the state?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

“Abracadabra” is believed to be of Hebrew origin, mostly used in Kabala, and basically means “I will create with words.” “Hokus Pokus” is held to be its Latin counterpart. Maybe Aquila saw too many magic shows, and now believes because he says it's true--it's true?

Exactly, his foolishness abounds, as two men and two women getting a civil marriage. They aren't married just because they gained a license. We understand this, but the same can be said of Aquila and his girlfriend. His inconsistencies abound on the forum, and his impropriety concerning a post telling us how he and his girlfriend eat Count Chocula while sitting naked is none of our business. Yet, he feels the need to parade that garbage in front of us. When taken to task about it he then tells us he knows forums where they talk about such garbage in a private room. We have yet had these forums posted to us. Tends to make one wonder Aquila's ability to tell the truth. Anyway, is his marriage sanctioned? Do the elders agree with his arrangement? He tells us yes, but he tells us lots of things.

Aquila has a mountain of issues which he knows that they are many. His arrangement with "grilfriend" is just that, an arrangement. Did God sanction it? No, a man sanctioned it, and the fruit is Aquila's past history of far out there postings politically and religiously.

He believes in just signing a Bible and you are married? But also wants to get a civil wedding for financial reasons? More of Aquila's partly fact and partly fiction. His walking contradictions.

Still waiting on the details of how one gets a divorce from the "Biblical Mayhem" which you defend Aquila. Do you go back to the Quakers who married you with a bill of divorcement written out in crayon on a napkin?

Or do you mutually agree on leaving each other, and when you meet ANOTHER lady love, you change partners?

Aquila I'm waiting for your outline on this

[consapente89]

idiots just can't hide it when they get social media.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You give your girlfriend a "bill of divorcement?"

How does that work within you "house church?"

Please, continue.

That is a thought provoking question. I've not seen that process in operation. I do know that our fellowship would meet with us individually and seek to work out reconciliation between the two of us. If reconciliation wasn't possible for some reason, I imagine that we'd have to accept that we must part ways. And I don't see our fellowship blessing another union immediately. So, moving into another relationship immediately would clearly be problematic. I don't see the party who is unwilling to reconciling remaining in fellowship.

Now, the state, that's a different story. I could get a divorce through the civil courts and remarry under a Justice of the Peace on the same day if I wished. And there's nothing any religious body could really say or do.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't think I was saying they'd be worse off for getting a civil marriage. But I thought you were saying they'd be worse off unless they got a civil marriage? And that a civil marriage ipso facto places the couple in a divinely sanctioned state?



Like two men with a bona fide legal civil marriage? I would agree, such are just claiming marriage, but aren't actually married.

Which raises the question at the root of the whole discussion: What constitutes genuine marriage? And, Does God only sanction those unions which are sanctioned by the state?

It wasn't until the 20th century that state licensing, as we know it, came into the picture.

In my circumstance, we both have necessary powers of attorney in place for financial and medical rights over one another. In addition, we have wills in place. We didn't just "shack up". Although some will paint that picture for the purpose of character assassination. She hasn't changed her name legally yet. However, it should be noted that there is no law stating that a woman has to change her name, not even in the event that a couple has a "civil marriage". We all know of wives who have chosen not to take their husband's name for various reasons. Yet, regardless of these facts, the wolves will continue to bark and howl over it long into the night.

The government has pushed itself into so many private areas of our lives that it is nearly impossible to avoid the government entirely in private matters should an individual desire to. I'm not saying that civil marriage should be abolished. I'm not saying that those in a civil marriage have sinned. What I'm saying is that the civil contract as exists today has such far reaching implications, it should be voluntary on the part of any couple.

I'd also like to point out that the biggest critics of covenant marriages are most often state licensed ministers, i.e., licensed agents of the state. They exist to serve Caesar (as their licensing requires). And serve him they will.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That is a thought provoking question. I've not seen that process in operation. I do know that our fellowship would meet with us individually and seek to work out reconciliation between the two of us. If reconciliation wasn't possible for some reason, I imagine that we'd have to accept that we must part ways. And I don't see our fellowship blessing another union immediately. So, moving into another relationship immediately would clearly be problematic. I don't see the party who is unwilling to reconciling remaining in fellowship.

Now, the state, that's a different story. I could get a divorce through the civil courts and remarry under a Justice of the Peace on the same day if I wished. And there's nothing any religious body could really say or do.

Wait, but you said your fellowship would seek the Biblical mandate.

So explain the bill of divorcement biblically,

Whatever your elders do is off the top of their heads through some sort of counseling. Israel was a kingdom, it had kings, officials, judges, documents (which we call scripture) and it had laws thick, stretching from one end to the other. So, please carry on, tell us how your group would Biblically perform your divorce. Because after all they performed you marriage. Man, did that not God. God tried to reconcile with His bride, after He gave her a bill of divorcement. A bill Aquila, He just didn't walk off, He gave her documentation, legal papers, something everyone could read and understand.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It wasn't until the 20th century that state licensing, as we know it, came into the picture.

In my circumstance, we both have necessary powers of attorney in place for financial and medical rights over one another. In addition, we have wills in place. We didn't just "shack up". Although some will paint that picture for the purpose of character assassination. She hasn't changed her name legally yet. However, it should be noted that there is no law stating that a woman has to change her name, not even in the event that a couple has a "civil marriage". We all know of wives who have chosen not to take their husband's name for various reasons. Yet, regardless of these facts, the wolves will continue to bark and howl over it long into the night.

The government has pushed itself into so many private areas of our lives that it is nearly impossible to avoid the government entirely in private matters should an individual desire to. I'm not saying that civil marriage should be abolished. I'm not saying that those in a civil marriage have sinned. What I'm saying is that the civil contract as exists today has such far reaching implications, it should be voluntary on the part of any couple.

I'd also like to point out that the biggest critics of covenant marriages are most often state licensed ministers, i.e., licensed agents of the state. They exist to serve Caesar (as their licensing requires). And serve him they will.

Wolves?

Are you serious? Is everyone who comes against your malarkey the bad guy? Bro, you are a walking contradiction. Partly fact and partly fiction. Your problem is that you blow smoke up our tail pipes and expect us to think you are on some godly journey. You are not, you guys are living together in every sense of the word. Just like Biff and Bob, who before same gender marriage did the same thing you are doing. All so you and your "girlfriend" can eat Raisin Bran in the nude.

Get real.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Wait, but you said your fellowship would seek the Biblical mandate.

So explain the bill of divorcement biblically,

Whatever your elders do is off the top of their heads through some sort of counseling. Israel was a kingdom, it had kings, officials, judges, documents (which we call scripture) and it had laws thick, stretching from one end to the other. So, please carry on, tell us how your group would Biblically perform your divorce. Because after all they performed you marriage. Man, did that not God. God tried to reconcile with His bride, after He gave her a bill of divorcement. A bill Aquila, He just didn't walk off, He gave her documentation, legal papers, something everyone could read and understand.

In the Old Testament, the bill of divorcement, the "get", was written by the husband, not the state. It was essentially a, "Dear Jane", letter.

Now, in the New Testament, Paul addresses unbelieving spouses who abandon their believing spouses, saying:

I Corinthians 7:15
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Paul illustrates that the abandonment constitutes a break in covenant, and by that alone, the believer is no longer bound to the union. Paul doesn't speak of any written document or legal requirement.

Can you find where Paul requires the "get" for an official divorce?

As for the church, we read:

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The church itself is a priesthood and a nation. Yes, we are scattered throughout the nations of this world, but we are a nation unto ourselves. Islam takes this seriously, so seriously in fact that they demand to be governed by their own laws, in spite of the laws of whatever nation they happen to exist in. Paul speaks of the church as needing to realize that they are capable of judging and managing the affairs of the saints, outside of unbelieving courts:

I Corinthians 6:2-7
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another.

It would appear that the biblical ideal is that the church handles all matters and disputes involving the saints, free of the necessity of unbelieving courts.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Wolves?

Are you serious? Is everyone who comes against your malarkey the bad guy? Bro, you are a walking contradiction. Partly fact and partly fiction. Your problem is that you blow smoke up our tail pipes and expect us to think you are on some godly journey. You are not, you guys are living together in every sense of the word. Just like Biff and Bob, who before same gender marriage did the same thing you are doing. All so you and your "girlfriend" can eat Raisin Bran in the nude.

Get real.

If you've noticed, I've had a very thorough and respectful conversation with a couple brethren on this thread who disagree with me on the issue. However, you'll also notice that they are not issuing personal insults, jabs, slander, or attacks like snickering teenagers. They are respectfully discussing "the topic", not necessarily, "me", personally. They understand that they are not my pastors, nor are they my elders, nor have I asked for their spiritual mentorship and personal guidance. Those who overstep these boundaries to go personal are, to me, but barking dogs. And so, the brethren who are respectfully discussing the issue with me are making good points, providing food for thought, and causing me to step back and consider various aspects of my position. Those who are choosing to go personal, well, they are but an annoyance in the midst of an otherwise productive conversation.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Wolves?

Are you serious? Is everyone who comes against your malarkey the bad guy?

Fair question.

No. As I've said, a few posters have disagreed with my position and have been discussing the topic with me. You'll also notice that they aren't issuing personal attacks. They are not "bad guys", even though they might disagree. In fact, I find that they are offering valuable input on the topic from their perspective.

What makes one a "bad guy" (as you put it) is the desire to personally malign, slander, insult, or attack one personally. The disagreement isn't the issue. It's the spirit and approach of the individual poster.

Bro, you are a walking contradiction. Partly fact and partly fiction. Your problem is that you blow smoke up our tail pipes and expect us to think you are on some godly journey. You are not, you guys are living together in every sense of the word. Just like Biff and Bob, who before same gender marriage did the same thing you are doing. All so you and your "girlfriend" can eat Raisin Bran in the nude.

Get real.

Would you say that the above is a "personal attack" or would you say that it is truly discussing the subject and details of covenant marriage vs. civil marriage in this context?