Posted on 05/02/2007 4:41:20 AM PDT by Phil Magnan
So I guess if a man has 3 children with 3 different women but they all live in the same house its ok. That would make sense, but would he have committed adultery on his first wife in order to impregnate the 2nd and if so did he commit adultery on the second in order to impregnate the 3rd.
By your lawyerly logic, if a man and woman were stuck on a deserted island, had sex and bore children they are not married until a judge or preacher declares it so.
If a man and woman decide to live together their whole lives from 18 to 85 but never officially sealing the deal with a judge or preacher then God would consider them not married.
How about Muslims? Does God consider them married when an Imam marries them? What about Pagans in the jungle? What is Gods rule on that since he is the one who decides what sin is?
What if he doesn't put away his wife but keeps her and marries another?
Suggest you check out chlamydia, cervical cancer, etc.
Suggest you check out chlamydia, cervical cancer, etc.
Also the irresponsible heterosexuality is shaving off about 80 years from about 1.2 million Americans per year.
What other hairs can you grow, in order to split?
A lifetime commitment is a lifetime commitment. And if it is not, it is not.
Please expand on that.
No need to.
10-4
I recall a story that goes back a few years to a national assembly of a protestant denomination. The assembly was considering an abstinence before marriage resolution. The teens said they would support it if the resolution included unmarried adults. It was dropped.
Actually God Himself.
Or were they living in sin?
...
What about Abraham and Sarah (or Hagar for that matter).
Probably Abraham's family back in Ur. We're not told who married them--as Abraham was called after he was married. Marriage is simply a public socially and legally enforcible commitment--however a given society formalizes that. Our own society does that through a preacher or a judge.
In our society a "family marriage" done as in Abraham's day would not be a marriage, as it would not be legally enforcible--whereas in his day, by the customs of the people there, it was. If you were a tribesman in New Guinea today, you wouldn't need a marriage certificate and a preacher or judge...as legally enforcible marriage in a tribe is done differently than that--so the specifics of what makes a legal marriage depend on the society one is a part of.
So I guess if a man has 3 children with 3 different women but they all live in the same house its ok. That would make sense, but would he have committed adultery on his first wife in order to impregnate the 2nd and if so did he commit adultery on the second in order to impregnate the 3rd.
No one here has advocated the (re)legalization of polygamy, or adultery...and you purposely just seem to want to be confusing here. Since marriage is by its nature a legal institution, and polygamy is illegal, there is no such thing as polygamy in America today. The fundamental Mormons living with several women are not actually married to them--even if they think they are, and their religion says so... Since it is illegal here in America, it is not marriage in America.
Again, God made marriage, but, then it's also simultaneously a social convention--recognized in all societies throughout history, with certain rules in each society--differing only in details. In societies coming from a culturally Christian background only monogamy is recognized, hence only monogamy is marriage. If you lived in a Moslem country today, and could afford it, you could legally have 4 wives...however, in this stage of God's revelation through the Bible...that itself would not be fully moral, even though legal. (It may well be more moral than divorcing 3 women though....)
It's not simply an academic question either. In Africa, when a polygamist man becomes a Christian, the question has come up of what is he to do about those 3 "extra" wives? The solution, biblically based is, he isn't to abandon them by divorce (as this could doom the poor women to poverty or exploitation), but at the same time, he cannot hold a church office (such as pastor or deacon), nor can he marry any more wives.
Given their social/legal situation, this seems like a reasonable solution--since the bible in the New Testament says that Church officers must be "the husband of but one wife." So while polygamy is not the way of the future in such societies, one must deal with it's realities in the present--and polygamy--with all its problems--will only last one more generation.
By your lawyerly logic, if a man and woman were stuck on a deserted island, had sex and bore children they are not married until a judge or preacher declares it so.
Actually not. Stuck on a desert Island, they would be a society to themselves--and without other social/legal authorities on the island other than themselves could authorize, I believe, their own marriage. Once rescued though, by law, if they lived in a state in the USA they would have to go to a judge or priest to make it official by OUR laws. Actually, I believe that current international law recognizes a ship captain, being the highest authority on his ship in international waters, as able to perform legal marriages onboard. So they could get officially hitched, right after rescue!
If a man and woman decide to live together their whole lives from 18 to 85 but never officially sealing the deal with a judge or preacher then God would consider them not married.
That's right--and if one left the other at age 80 with all their money--there is no legal protection for the one left. (except in a couple of states with "common law" marriage laws.) That is one of the reasons marriage is a legally enforcible institution--to protect the parties in the event of separation, or in death and inheritance disputes, among other things.
The best principle I've heard is that there is no such thing as "married in the eyes of God" and not married legally. Marriage is an institution God has delegated to each society's social and legal authorities...in fact it is the ultimate social institution, since out of it, in the form of children, society is formed.
How about Muslims? Does God consider them married when an Imam marries them? What about Pagans in the jungle? What is Gods rule on that since he is the one who decides what sin is?
Of course Moslems and pagans have moral/legal marriages. Marriage is not a strictly religious institution, even though invented and blessed by God. Find me the most isolated tribe of headhunters in the world...which worships trees, or pigs, or waterfalls...and I'll show you a place where they have public socially acknowledged and legally enforcible (in that society) marriage.
Heterosexual 'non-marital' sexual relations is "natural" yet still fornication. It is NOT a violation of nature or natural law. However, it is a violation of the Divine law.
Homosexuality is "unnatural" fornication. It is both a violation of nature or natural law and a violation of the Divine law.
I have to disagree. The 60's and 70's pushed that onto society and started the moral slide of the country.
But I also understand your other point.
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
one wife for life is what Jesus teaches
I don’t See parades and kids books pushing unmarried couples as a good and healthy thing..
Come on now. Yes you do. It is all over the television and movies. I know what you meant with regards to the gays having an agenda, but believe me these kids get plenty of education from unmarried having sex outside of marriage and couples living together as they are married.
Homosexual acts are an abomination.
There is no hypocracy in being disgusted by such unnatural behavior.
One is not blatantly exposed to “Cohabitation & Adultery” in thousands of public restrooms across the country!
True. Just on airplanes. lol.
However, children of otherwise loving, unwed heterosexual parents stand a better chance of obtaining emotional well being than children raised in homosexual households. The studies show that children do best when there is one consistent male and one consistent female role model that share parenting responsibility. Kids who are raised this way are more likely to grow up, pay taxes and stay out of jail.
You can justify anything. But I think that kids in divorce families end up pretty messed up. I don’t think there are enough studies to see what happens in homosexual families just yet. It is still pretty new. Both are wrong in my book.
What do you call Mardi gras? Also Woodstock was pretty much a heterosexual free for all. Get to the real world.
A not insignificant number of academics and psychologists are now pushing to legitimize pedophilia.
Unfortunately they is mostly a straight man’s sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.