|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 2:18:43 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 555
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GregandJenny
quote:
They are requirements for legal recognition and acknowledgment of a marriage, and not marriage in general or within the religious realm. You are comparing apples to oranges.
So you believe that marriage as a legal entity and marriage of a religious entity are exclusive of each other?
I believe they are not the same and, as you noted, they are not the same. A same sex marriage is not a recognizable marriage for some Christian sects. So, the fact the state has recognized something as legal, and legally recognizable, for the purposes of the state and state law, does not necessarily mean God also recognizes it as legitimate. Yes, I think there is a difference between a legally recognizable marriage and a marriage so construed by religious dictates, religious faith, ritual, practice, and belief.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 2:21:08 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 555
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
I am an old man. Thinking hurts. Please humor me and just say the law does not prohibit it in all cases. And I will say it does not require it in all cases. That way we both save a lot of time doing needless research. 
LOL...I will accommoate you and qualify my remarks as you suggested.
So, my remark should be construed as meaning, "solemnized marriages lacking a marriage license is not prohibited by state statute, although certain people are prohibited from solemnizing marriages in the absence of a marriage license."
Hey, if I do not bump into you later today in this thread, have a good weekend.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 2:21:40 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6793
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GregandJenny
So you believe that marriage as a legal entity and marriage of a religious entity are exclusive of each other?
Shacking up and calling it a marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of God; since he told us to obey the law of the land. To break one of God's laws and use that disobedience to try and sanctify something else just will not get it.
James' writings might just apply here;
(Jas 2:10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 2:51:29 PM
|
|
|
GregandJenny
Posts: 669
Joined: 2/16/2006
From: Near Seattle Washington
Status: offline
|
quote:
Shacking up and calling it a marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of God; since he told us to obey the law of the land. To break one of God's laws and use that disobedience to try and sanctify something else just will not get it.
RC I agree with you 100%. It just makes no sense what Notre is saying IMO.
_____________________________
It does not have to be well with my circumstance to be well with my soul!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 3:22:30 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 555
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
Did I say shacking up and calling it marriage is a marriage in according to God? No, so your remark above is what does not make any sense. Try addressing what I actually said, as opposed to some fictional argument, before stating my position makes no sense. You have to know, first, what exactly I am stating before you can accurately comment on it.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 3:23:37 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 555
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: GregandJenny
So you believe that marriage as a legal entity and marriage of a religious entity are exclusive of each other?
Shacking up and calling it a marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of God; since he told us to obey the law of the land. To break one of God's laws and use that disobedience to try and sanctify something else just will not get it.
James' writings might just apply here;
(Jas 2:10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Thanks
RC
Yeah but I am not and have not advocated for anything like this at all. I am and remain contesting your point a marriage is not valid in the eyes of God unless recognized by state law. On this point, your argument is invalid.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 3:26:45 PM
|
|
|
GregandJenny
Posts: 669
Joined: 2/16/2006
From: Near Seattle Washington
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am and remain contesting your point a marriage is not valid in the eyes of God unless recognized by state law. On this point, your argument is invalid.
I guess I just don't understand what you're trying to argue.
So there is really nothing else to say.
_____________________________
It does not have to be well with my circumstance to be well with my soul!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 3:30:45 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 555
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GregandJenny
quote:
I am and remain contesting your point a marriage is not valid in the eyes of God unless recognized by state law. On this point, your argument is invalid.
I guess I just don't understand what you're trying to argue.
So there is really nothing else to say.
It is rather simple and I have articulated it in post after post. Let's suppose we have two people, a male and female, who are in a church, before witnesses, exchange vows, make promises to each other, and then have a piece of paper, which is signed by the two, signed by witnesses, signed by the person marrying them, dated, and you are telling me they are not married in the eyes of God unless and until the state officially recognizes it?
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 3:45:39 PM
|
|
|
GregandJenny
Posts: 669
Joined: 2/16/2006
From: Near Seattle Washington
Status: offline
|
quote:
d you are telling me they are not married in the eyes of God unless and until the state officially recognizes it?
I am saying that BECAUSE GOD has set up Government as authority, and the authority says you must apply for a license which is not hard to do. YOUR SCENARIO WOULD WORK IF the state refused to give a person a marriage certifcate in a situation that God would permit the marriage.
G
_____________________________
It does not have to be well with my circumstance to be well with my soul!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 6:49:55 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6793
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
It is rather simple and I have articulated it in post after post.
I would say that whether you have articulated anything or not is up for grabs.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 7:02:26 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2960
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
James' writings might just apply here;
(Jas 2:10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Thanks
RC
So, which law are you refering to? I thought you believed this verse was talking about HaTorah. I find nothing in HaTorah that requires us to register with the secular government in oredr to get married. If you are saying one must keep all of the secular law, I hope, when you visit Washington, you are prepared to have a man run out in front of your vehicle with a lantern so you don't scare the horses. I hear that law is still on the books.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/26/2009 7:21:38 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6793
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
So, which law are you refering to? I thought you believed this verse was talking about HaTorah. I find nothing in HaTorah that requires us to register with the secular government in oredr to get married. If you are saying one must keep all of the secular law, I hope, when you visit Washington, you are prepared to have a man run out in front of your vehicle with a lantern so you don't scare the horses. I hear that law is still on the books.
Ob please mr. Bluethread, I said "Might just apply", the gist of the thread and my postion is that a "Marriage" (Shack up) could not be considered Godly, if to get there; the couple and the Pastor were disobediant to Scripture (Romans 13:1-3) to facilitate the fornication.
I was obviously using the James 2:10 quiote as an analogy to breaking the States law to justify fornication.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 9:43:56 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 555
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GregandJenny
quote:
d you are telling me they are not married in the eyes of God unless and until the state officially recognizes it?
I am saying that BECAUSE GOD has set up Government as authority, and the authority says you must apply for a license which is not hard to do. YOUR SCENARIO WOULD WORK IF the state refused to give a person a marriage certifcate in a situation that God would permit the marriage.
G
No, there is not a state law which says you must have a license to be married. Rather, the license is necessary to constitute as a "legal marriage" a marriage the state officially recognizes but the lack of a legally recognizable marriage does not mean no marriage exists. Stop making up fictional laws to suit your argument.
However, in the alternative, let's consider the following scenario.
Many couples get married on a Saturday. On Saturday most if not all government offices are closed, including the clerks office. In my state, a marriage is not officially legal until the license is signed by all the parties, bride, groom, two witnesses, individual conducting the wedding scenario, and received by the clerk's office. Since the clerk's office is closed on Saturday and Sunday in all counties in the state of Indiana, the earliers the license can be received by the clerks office is Monday. However, in those instances where the couple goes on a honeymoon, and does not leave the responsibility to anyone else to see the marriage license is filed with the clerk's office, the marriage license is probably not given to the clerk's office until after the honeymoon. Which necessarily means they are not a legally recognized married couple under state law.
Consequently, by your reasoning, the married couple is not really "married" on Saturday, after the ceremony is concluded, Sunday, or Monday through the following Sunday, in which they are out of town and on their honeymoony. They do not become married until 10 days later, after they return from their honeymoon, and file their marriage license with the clerk's office and the state officially recognizes their marriage, officially recognizes them as "married" at this time. Which means for 9 days they were not married and were fornicating sinners.
Now, this absurd result is where your reasoning leads us. In my example above, the couple is not married in the eyes of God because they have not filed their marriage license with the proper state authority yet, or while on their honeymoon, and consequently, the state does not recognize or acknowledge them as married as a matter of state law until such filing occurs. In the interim, they are an unmarried couple having sex on their honeymoon. The sinners!
As I said before, this reasoning you espouse leads to and results in absolutely illogical results, and consequently, I reject this reasoning on this basis.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 9:52:15 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 555
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
It is rather simple and I have articulated it in post after post.
I would say that whether you have articulated anything or not is up for grabs.
Thanks
RC
Is this the best you have? I expect remarks such as these from people who cannot logically and adequately defend their position. The fact is, I have articulated a strong criticism of your position, what is up for grabs is whether you have ever made a strong logical argument in support of your claim. Those are the facts, your remark above is the fiction. Put on the rubby slippers, tap them three times, and return from the land of fiction to reality.
You have failed, miserably, to refer to any state law which states no marriage exists without a marriage license. No state law says anything remotely close to this but rather the state laws are properly understood as stating no marriage exists as a matter of law without a marriage license. People can still be married, and so joined together, as a matter of religious faith, ritual, and practice, regardless of the fact they have not officially recorded their marriage with the proper state authority.
A marriage license is a pre-requisite for the state and its laws to formally recognize the marriage, however, no state law says a marriage license is a pre-requisite for marriage to exist as a matter of religious practice, faith, ritual, belief, or custom. Your failure to acknowledge this distinction is a fatal flaw of your argument. In fact, it is this distinction which would allow marriage to exist, in the eyes of God, should the state, tomorrow, abolish ALL marriages. Your argument fails and continue to fails as a result of acknowledging this distinction and adequately addressing it or refuting it.
Now, if, however, you insist on resting a valid marriage in the eyes of God upon the state's legal recognition of it, then this grandiose reasoning leads us to the following absurd result.
Many couples get married on a Saturday. On Saturday most if not all government offices are closed, including the clerks office. In my state, a marriage is not officially legal until the license is signed by all the parties, bride, groom, two witnesses, individual conducting the wedding scenario, and received by the clerk's office. Since the clerk's office is closed on Saturday and Sunday in all counties in the state of Indiana, the earliers the license can be received by the clerks office is Monday. However, in those instances where the couple goes on a honeymoon, and does not leave the responsibility to anyone else to see the marriage license is filed with the clerk's office, the marriage license is probably not given to the clerk's office until after the honeymoon. Which necessarily means they are not a legally recognized married couple under state law.
Consequently, by your reasoning, the married couple is not really "married" on Saturday, after the ceremony is concluded, Sunday, or Monday through the following Sunday, in which they are out of town and on their honeymoony. They do not become married until 10 days later, after they return from their honeymoon, and file their marriage license with the clerk's office and the state officially recognizes their marriage, officially recognizes them as "married" at this time. Which means for 9 days they were not married and were fornicating sinners.
Now, this absurd result is where your reasoning leads us. In my example above, the couple is not married in the eyes of God because they have not filed their marriage license with the proper state authority yet, or while on their honeymoon, and consequently, the state does not recognize or acknowledge them as married as a matter of state law until such filing occurs. In the interim, they are an unmarried couple having sex on their honeymoon. The sinners!
As I said before, this reasoning you espouse leads to and results in absolutely illogical results, and consequently, I reject this reasoning on this basis.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 9:57:34 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 555
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GregandJenny
quote:
Are you taking the position God does not acknowledge a marriage unless it conforms to state law, because this is the issue.
now if the government said only homosexual couples could get married, which is CONTRARY to God's word then undocumented marriage would be ok, because there would be no legal way to fill what God intended for man and woman.
G
I notice you failed to answer my question to the reasoning above. I suspect the reason why you cannot answer the question is because of a fundamental inability to adequately defend your position with logical consistency. However, I resubmit the questions for you to answer again.
quote:
now if the government said only homosexual couples could get married, which is CONTRARY to God's word then undocumented marriage would be ok, because there would be no legal way to fill what God intended for man and woman.
So, pray tell how exactly A.) marriage would exist in such a context for heterosexual couples and B.) under what circumstances would God then recognize it as a "marriage" in such a context?
Your failure to answer these questions will reveal a lot of your position, or to be correct the lack of persuasive and strong logical reasoning in your position.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 10:35:04 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6793
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
Is this the best you have? I expect remarks such as these from people who cannot logically and adequately defend their position. The fact is, I have articulated a strong criticism of your position, what is up for grabs is whether you have ever made a strong logical argument in support of your claim. Those are the facts, your remark above is the fiction. Put on the rubby slippers, tap them three times, and return from the land of fiction to reality.
You have failed, miserably, to refer to any state law which states no marriage exists without a marriage license. No state law says anything remotely close to this but rather the state laws are properly understood as stating no marriage exists as a matter of law without a marriage license. People can still be married, and so joined together, as a matter of religious faith, ritual, and practice, regardless of the fact they have not officially recorded their marriage with the proper state authority.
A marriage license is a pre-requisite for the state and its laws to formally recognize the marriage, however, no state law says a marriage license is a pre-requisite for marriage to exist as a matter of religious practice, faith, ritual, belief, or custom. Your failure to acknowledge this distinction is a fatal flaw of your argument. In fact, it is this distinction which would allow marriage to exist, in the eyes of God, should the state, tomorrow, abolish ALL marriages. Your argument fails and continue to fails as a result of acknowledging this distinction and adequately addressing it or refuting it.
Now, if, however, you insist on resting a valid marriage in the eyes of God upon the state's legal recognition of it, then this grandiose reasoning leads us to the following absurd result.
Many couples get married on a Saturday. On Saturday most if not all government offices are closed, including the clerks office. In my state, a marriage is not officially legal until the license is signed by all the parties, bride, groom, two witnesses, individual conducting the wedding scenario, and received by the clerk's office. Since the clerk's office is closed on Saturday and Sunday in all counties in the state of Indiana, the earliers the license can be received by the clerks office is Monday. However, in those instances where the couple goes on a honeymoon, and does not leave the responsibility to anyone else to see the marriage license is filed with the clerk's office, the marriage license is probably not given to the clerk's office until after the honeymoon. Which necessarily means they are not a legally recognized married couple under state law.
Consequently, by your reasoning, the married couple is not really "married" on Saturday, after the ceremony is concluded, Sunday, or Monday through the following Sunday, in which they are out of town and on their honeymoony. They do not become married until 10 days later, after they return from their honeymoon, and file their marriage license with the clerk's office and the state officially recognizes their marriage, officially recognizes them as "married" at this time. Which means for 9 days they were not married and were fornicating sinners.
Now, this absurd result is where your reasoning leads us. In my example above, the couple is not married in the eyes of God because they have not filed their marriage license with the proper state authority yet, or while on their honeymoon, and consequently, the state does not recognize or acknowledge them as married as a matter of state law until such filing occurs. In the interim, they are an unmarried couple having sex on their honeymoon. The sinners!
As I said before, this reasoning you espouse leads to and results in absolutely illogical results, and consequently, I reject this reasoning on this basis.
In our state the marriage is official when the one officiating signs the license, and is officiall for a period of 5 days based on that signature (which is the reason that wedding officiatros must be registered with the county to be able to act as an agent for the county). During five days the signed and offical document must be filed in the county where the wedding was officiated, and then it remains official. In the case that a liscense is lost, there is a form that can be filled out to replace the original and the marriage is still official from the signing of the liscense.
So I do not know about where you live, but here in Oklahoma we have it well covered.
May I ask why you are so insistant on trying to make "Shacking up" which is fornication not a sin; do you have a personal interest is that position?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 1:16:19 PM
|
|
|
GregandJenny
Posts: 669
Joined: 2/16/2006
From: Near Seattle Washington
Status: offline
|
Notre,
Where I live in WA there is paper work to fill out when you get your license to marry. Then when you're married by one who is legally able to marry you are married, your INTENT to get married is already on file THEREFORE your above scenario does not hold water. You have a certain window of opporitunity (waiting 3 days after you get your license to marry) to get your certificate filled out and sent in to be put on file.
To answer your questions:
1. I do believe that marriage must conform to state law when it is not directly against God's command. It's really simple.
2. marriage is defined between a man and a woman, and is a fundemental institution created by God. If the Government tries to change that, then in my opinion The Word of God over rules that.
3. The context that I would think it would be recognized would be outlined in your local church. God has given them authority. For instance, RC's church would have set up a process to get get married, divorced ect..., and we as church members would have to fall under that authority.
My question for you:
Since you seem to believe that marriage can be outside the authority of the government, How does that work. When is it shacking up and when is it marriage?
G
_____________________________
It does not have to be well with my circumstance to be well with my soul!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 2:25:47 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2960
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
So, which law are you refering to? I thought you believed this verse was talking about HaTorah. I find nothing in HaTorah that requires us to register with the secular government in oredr to get married. If you are saying one must keep all of the secular law, I hope, when you visit Washington, you are prepared to have a man run out in front of your vehicle with a lantern so you don't scare the horses. I hear that law is still on the books.
Ob please mr. Bluethread, I said "Might just apply", the gist of the thread and my postion is that a "Marriage" (Shack up) could not be considered Godly, if to get there; the couple and the Pastor were disobediant to Scripture (Romans 13:1-3) to facilitate the fornication.
I was obviously using the James 2:10 quiote as an analogy to breaking the States law to justify fornication.
Thanks
RC
But this use violates your prior use of the passage. If one is a civil law breaker when they break any law that has been handed down by the secular government, then one is also a lawbreaker if he breaks any law that is handed down from Adonai. That would include those things that were revealed through Yeshua and the apostles. So, please be consistant with your analogies. If you believe we should try to obey the civil law at all points based on this passage, how much more should we attempt to obey the laws of Adonai, to which this verse directly applies. It is off topic to go into whether or not we should be keeping all of HaTorah. However, it is just as off topic, let alone inconsitant in your case, to equate the secular civil law to HaTorah and require it be kept on that basis.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 2:40:19 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2960
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GregandJenny
Notre,
Where I live in WA there is paper work to fill out when you get your license to marry. Then when you're married by one who is legally able to marry you are married, your INTENT to get married is already on file THEREFORE your above scenario does not hold water. You have a certain window of opporitunity (waiting 3 days after you get your license to marry) to get your certificate filled out and sent in to be put on file.
To answer your questions:
1. I do believe that marriage must conform to state law when it is not directly against God's command. It's really simple.
2. marriage is defined between a man and a woman, and is a fundemental institution created by God. If the Government tries to change that, then in my opinion The Word of God over rules that.
3. The context that I would think it would be recognized would be outlined in your local church. God has given them authority. For instance, RC's church would have set up a process to get get married, divorced ect..., and we as church members would have to fall under that authority.
My question for you:
Since you seem to believe that marriage can be outside the authority of the government, How does that work. When is it shacking up and when is it marriage?
G
According to the civil government, when two people live as a married couple for seven years they are by statute recognized as married. An important thing with the law is what is the penalty or remedy. There are laws for which there is no penalty. Marrage is just such a case, in the civil law. The state will not anull a marrage that is not licensed. It just will not recognize it with regard to taxation and other rights. Under the current state of the law, to my best knowledge, one can take procedures short of marrage to secure these rights and privileges. Also, if a child results, the state recognizes parenthood and after seven years the couple is recognized as married. Therefore, it is possible to effect a marrage legally without registering with the state.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 3:41:40 PM
|
|
|
GregandJenny
Posts: 669
Joined: 2/16/2006
From: Near Seattle Washington
Status: offline
|
quote:
According to the civil government, when two people live as a married couple for seven years they are by statute recognized as marrie
Not in all juristrictions.
_____________________________
It does not have to be well with my circumstance to be well with my soul!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 3:46:28 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6793
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
But this use violates your prior use of the passage. If one is a civil law breaker when they break any law that has been handed down by the secular government, then one is also a lawbreaker if he breaks any law that is handed down from Adonai. That would include those things that were revealed through Yeshua and the apostles. So, please be consistant with your analogies. If you believe we should try to obey the civil law at all points based on this passage, how much more should we attempt to obey the laws of Adonai, to which this verse directly applies. It is off topic to go into whether or not we should be keeping all of HaTorah. However, it is just as off topic, let alone inconsitant in your case, to equate the secular civil law to HaTorah and require it be kept on that basis.
Accoreding to Romans 13:1-3 Z (That would be in the New Testament) if a Christian breaks man's laws, he breaks God's commandment to keep man's laws, therefore he breaks God's law.
And if one breaks one of God's laws to try and justy another breakage of God's laws (fornication); I just do not think it will fly when we appear before the BEMA;
(2Co 5:10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
And that would be inwhatever country we might live.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 7:56:42 PM
|
|
|
-Remy-
Posts: 9
Joined: 6/21/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Accoreding to Romans 13:1-3 Z (That would be in the New Testament) if a Christian breaks man's laws, he breaks God's commandment to keep man's laws, therefore he breaks God's law.
By this logic wouldn't all early Christians be condemned to hell for illegally practicing Christianity in violation of Roman law? I can't understand the logic of equating a fallible man made law with the law of an infallible God.
If someone can help me better understand this I would appreciate it greatly.
Peace
-Remy
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
But it was interesting reading. Kinda like when one of my friends sent me a pamphlet on the evils of wearing wedding rings. lol.
