|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Of course I knew what your answer would be. Not an expert on ancient history or religions, but do know what Genesis 2:24 says. That's fairly ancient. It dates to the rise of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture of the Middle East. That culture created what we consider marriage today, using their religious text (that you cite) as grounds.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
Of course I knew what your answer would be. Not an expert on ancient history or religions, but do know what Genesis 2:24 says. That's fairly ancient. Yup with the man in charge.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,076
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,076 |
Of course I knew what your answer would be. Not an expert on ancient history or religions, but do know what Genesis 2:24 says. That's fairly ancient. It dates to the rise of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture of the Middle East. That culture created what we consider marriage today, using their religious text (that you cite) as grounds. Could you give a rough date?
Hang on to your memories; they're better than the real thing ever was - Joe Sherlock
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Could you give a rough date? I have given a few rough dates on request.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
Of course I knew what your answer would be. Not an expert on ancient history or religions, but do know what Genesis 2:24 says. That's fairly ancient. It dates to the rise of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture of the Middle East. That culture created what we consider marriage today, using their religious text (that you cite) as grounds. Could you give a rough date? Well the Old Testament has been dated to be about 6,000 years old so I guess that would be a good place to start. As Judaism is a monotheistic, androcratic religion maybe that was the start. If you are really interested start looking at when we went from a hunter/gatherer culture/society to an agrarian culture/society. Also compare the marriage history of the Greco/Roman area with marriage history of the Celts, Germans, and Norse in their area.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,076
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,076 |
If you are really interested start looking at when we went from a hunter/gatherer culture/society to an agrarian culture/society. Also compare the marriage history of the Greco/Roman area with marriage history of the Celts, Germans, and Norse in their area.[/b]
Maybe we need to define "tradition". The tradition began sometime in, well, in the beginning. What the history of each ethnic or people group is doesn't really interest me. My question of a rough date was directed to 4ager. I was being sincere. It sounded a lot later than that to which I was alluding.
Hang on to your memories; they're better than the real thing ever was - Joe Sherlock
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749 |
If religious groups were half as concerned about knowing and serving God as they are about having their man - made traditions defended, the world would be a better place. DITTOS! MARRIAGE IS NOT A MAN-MADE TRADITION! If marriage is not a man-made tradition than who invented marriage and don't say God. We have no empirical evidence on what God thinks or doesn't think about marriage. The study of the tradition of marriage shows that marriage is a man-made or maybe I should say male-made tradition. We have a record of what God thinks. Both Old and New Testaments. What is "tradition" may or may not look like that record depending on the view one takes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749 |
If religious groups were half as concerned about knowing and serving God as they are about having their man - made traditions defended, the world would be a better place. DITTOS! MARRIAGE IS NOT A MAN-MADE TRADITION! Yeah, it is. It didn't exist in it's current form until the Judeo-Christian-Islam faith structure arose in the Middle East. No, it is not. The concept and covenant relationship of marriage was introduced by God himself in the Garden Eden. This precedes the Judeo-Christian-Islam faith structure by almost 2000 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749 |
The study of the tradition of marriage shows that marriage is a man-made or maybe I should say male-made tradition.
Why would they have done that? To use women, who up until recently were chattel, for political purposes such as increasing a man's wealth, power, land, uniting clans, etc. Up until a hundred years or so if a woman with property and money married in Montana she lost all rights to her property and money as it became the man's property and money upon marriage. This is tough to understand unless one is willing to study ancient history and religions. That clearly was not the purpose as expressed by Jesus The Christ in the New Testament.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,258
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,258 |
If a business refused to serve gun owners, first, we would ask how did they know? Then we would simply refuse to do business with them.
Secondly, this business in NOT forcing their beliefs on its customers. It is the customers via the power of the state forcing its belief on the business.
Big Difference!!!
Well, that's dodging the point. A gay couple could conceal that fact, just as we conceal our guns. Will we all need to provide evidence of sex for a Christian wedding? How else can a poor minister be sure.  Background noise, gentlemen...... If religious groups were half as concerned about knowing and serving God as they are about having their man - made traditions defended, the world would be a better place. That is a bit absurb. The idea that you would suggest that one would marry someone of the same sex to conceal their sodomy is really beneath you. The issue is same sex marriage. That is not the Biblical pattern reguardless of your alleged higher standard for religious or "Christian" platitiudes. Of course it's absurd. I"m just pointing out your bad analogy - and the fact that you were dodging the point. Marriage, by the way, is not a man-made tradition. Let's just clear something up here. In spite of Derby's attempt to inject his form of history here in what is clearly out of his understanding....my beef isn't with marriage, nor am I claiming that the Christian marriage is man's invention. It's weddings. Holy matrimony is a state of the heart, and not subject to laws and traditions. Wedding ceremonies as we know them are a man-made tradition. Is that so hard to understand? I am not attacking marriage - traditional or otherwise. It is the whole wedding ceremony and the industry and the mythology and the politics that surrounds it that is man-made and it is this ceremony/tradition that is the focus of the gay community. It surely isn't holy matrimony that they're seeking - otherwise, they would simply make the pact between themselves and God. No - it's about money, tradition, social status, and ego. (Which, BTW, weigh heavily in the issue for many of those outside the gay community as well) To think that the gay movement can somehow destroy marriage or in any way harm The Kingdom of God is just, well, not Biblical. How on earth can anybody come between a Christian couple and God? How on earth can anybody come between a Christian minister and God? .....Unless we give them the leverage to do so - as we have with the wedding tradition/industry. This whole thing is the kind of noise designed to discredit the Christian faith by the very reaction it is provoking from many. If the Church would just let this gaudy ceremony and legal document go, and just be concerned with where our hearts are with God - this whole thing becomes nothing but insignificant background noise...as it should be. It's just the world being what the world is. Our mission is supposed to be above all this.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,608
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,608 |
My thought is that these ministers should give them a ceremony that will convert them from their wicked ways. 4 hours of sermons on the evils of homosexuality and how they will end up in hell suffering eternal damnation and everlasting agony in hell should cause them to reconsider forcing the minister to marry them. That would probably work, if they gave the same sermon for all their weddings. Might actually be a good idea. They could require pre-marriage counseling as part of the package. But that might drive away 90% of their customers..... I beg to differ. Part of the pastor's "marriage" service is the sermon that he feels is appropriate for each "couple". If the "couple" doesn't care for the way he performs the service then they are welcome to seek a different pastor for their marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,285 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,285 Likes: 1 |
No one's forcing them to do gay weddings. They can simply stop doing "weddings for profit". They are being forced to choose another profession, but so do we insist that burglars do the same. (No, I am not equating these people with burglars - just pointing out the legal angle).
The whole wedding industry is going to be effected by this - but the Church, IMO, should not be part of the wedding industry. And anybody who does not believe there is such a thing as the "wedding industry" has apparently never had to finance one.
The Church (God's Church) should never have sanctioned any connection of Church weddings to state regulation. IMO, the Church's role in Biblical marriage is or should be completely separate from civil authority. As such, there is no practical or Biblical reason for churches to charge any fee for weddings.
No money changing hands - no authority to regulate. Simple.
JMO. I don't like the way things are going either. I don't agree with any attempt to regulate what The Church may do regarding weddings with her own time and property. But two individuals marrying people for profit does not constitute a Church, IMO. Pretty close. A license is required to solemnize marriages legally. A license is actually state control. So to solemnize marriages, and for them to have standing before the law, the state has control of every aspect But before the law and before God are two different things. A marriage before God is valid before him, even if it isn't before the law. It has standing before God, but not law. Speaks of my point. The Church should not be concerned about making things between two persons "legal". Nor should The Church be used or managed as a business for profit. The de-facto partnership in the marriage industry should never have taken place and should be dissolved. This is all about special treatment by the government of married couples. We should never have asked for that or allowed it to happen. We like social engineering by tax code when it favors our own bias - but now that it does not..... I think if two people wish to be married before the Body and God then they should do so. If they wish to be married before the law let them go find a judge. That judge, he should not oversee vows but simply sign the paper.
The older I become the more I am convinced that the voice of honor in a man's heart is the voice of GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749 |
FreeMe,
I'm going to back out of this discussion simply because we are not taking issue on identical points. Our responses simply overlap in some areas that only muddy up the waters and call for needless defense of particular parts of the argument.
Please allow me to end with a clear statement of my position.
It is my position that one has the right to follow the dictates of one's conscious in the execution of one's business with little to no interference from the state.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,930
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,930 |
This has been an interesting thread - I've been reading, I think I only responded once. GeorgiaBoy - unfortunately one does not have the right, in the case of marriage, to execute one's own business without interference from the state. Should we? Yes. I agree with your position. But it's not the current state of reality. In fact, if I perform a wedding ceremony or blessing of a couple in any publicly accountable way, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE I'm in fairly serious trouble with the state. Hence my position that parallels yours - I dislike being an officer of the state simply because I am an ordained pastor, but I can't preside at marriage/wedding services without first submitting my credentials to the county courthouse in the county of my residence.
FreeMe - you're spot-on with the wedding vs. marriage thing. Weddings, as we currently know them, are remnants of court weddings, mostly Victorian court wedding patterns. They sealed treaties and property agreements, and a very cynical, though realistic view, is that the woman was a legal hostage against hostilities and to protect the agreements. Weddings (think of them as singular events) are a profit-making industry only by the choice of the couple and/or families and social pressure. Any wedding which occurs in a congregational/church setting can just as easily take place within about a 5-10 minute service with vows of faithfulness made by the couple AND the present congregation to pray for them and hold them accountable to their public vows. All of the ceremony with processionals, special music, secular symbolic unity ceremonies (sand ceremony, unity candle, etc) recessionals, pomp, and circumstance are adiaphora (stuff unnecessary for the substantive event to take place) and only contribute to the cost and/or debt of the couple and their families.
Selmer "Daddy, can you sometime maybe please go shoot a water buffalo so we can have that for supper? Please? And can I come along? Does it taste like deer?" - my 3-year old daughter 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,285 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,285 Likes: 1 |
Trying to get my head around your response. So you are saying that if you performed a ceremony within the capacity as pastor, with the couple knowing there is no license and you cannot legally solemnize them, you are in trouble.
It seems to me that if the couple knows that fact, and you do not sign the license, then there should not be a problem. i would have them sign a paper verifying that they know what you do has no legal standing. Beyond that, with you not representing yourself as an agent of the state, I see no problem.
The older I become the more I am convinced that the voice of honor in a man's heart is the voice of GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,737
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,737 |
Saw that too, but what happened to the right to refuse service? That was "taken care of" by the bakers who refused to make a cake. How about the Houston Mayors' attempt to control what is spoken from the churches? Its call "transformational change" you can believe in.
My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
|
|
|
|
|
138 members (AlleghenyMountain, 7887mm08, 300_savage, 44mc, 2500HD, Amos63, 9 invisible),
1,670
guests, and
936
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,084
Posts18,501,682
Members73,987
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from ]]( https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Trump-Tweet-Image-Im-Just-in-the-Way-e1577149651503.jpg)
