Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

On the Misc Forum, Paw-Paw posted a discussion titled "The Origin Of Marriage." He wrote, "This is a very interesting read. I did not know that marriage as we know it today began as a Catholic ceremony. It sure has changed over the years. I'm not trying to make a point here. Just interesting stuff.

http://www.islandmix.com/backc....igin-marriage-50901


And, oLDsEAdADDY replies, "I agree, very interesting. For a long time I've felt like marriage was much more legal than spiritual. One does not need to buy a license or go to court to dissolve spiritual things."

Actually, I need to correct the impression given in the article found in the URL link Paw has posted. The marriage as we know it today, one man and one woman, was not established by any church -- it was established by God. The very first wedding took place in the perfect Wedding Chapel -- the Garden of Eden -- and officiating at this wedding was God Himself. Now, that is a wedding!

We read about it in Genesis 2:21-25, "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."

I heard an interesting discussion relating to this yesterday on the radio talk show Pastor's Perspective on KWVE Christian Radio. We have often read this Scripture passage in Genesis 2 and I am sure that most people, like me, have assumed that the phrase "and they shall become one flesh" means the man and his wife are now "one flesh." And, that aspect of it always remained a mystery to me. In faith, I accepted it like I accept the Trinity, the fact that the Incarnate Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully Man, and the Rapture. But, I will admit that I never quite understood it.

Yesterday, Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel suggested a meaning for this phrase which does make sense. When two people, a man and a woman, are joined in marriage -- their love binds them together; yet they are still two individuals. But, the child which this union of love produces when the sperm of the man fertilizes the egg of the woman -- creates one child, one flesh.

The two become one flesh in their producing of a child carrying the chromosomes of both mother and father -- 23 chromosomes from each parent. Thus, the union of man and woman has produced one flesh -- their child. This is something which no relationship between two men or between two women can accomplish. And, this is why same-sex marriage can never be viewed as a true marriage.

Now, some detractors, and even some Christian Friends, may ask, "Bill, you have been a Christian for twenty-three years and you just now learn or accept this new, to you, explanation of that Scripture passage? Why is that passage any different now than it was before?" Good point, if this is the true meaning of that passage -- why am I just now learning it after all these years?

Many years ago, before I was a Christian believer -- I often wondered how a person can attend Seminary and spend four years studying one book, the Bible. Yet, I have been studying the Bible for twenty-three years, since becoming a Christian believer in
1987, and every day I learn something new.

Does this mean that God's Word, or my knowledge of God's Word, was wrong before and now someone, Pastor Chuck, or someone else, has corrected the Bible or my understanding of the Biblical passage? No. It just means that God gives us new revelations, new insights, as we have need. If we are not growing in our knowledge of God's Word -- our spiritual life will become stagnant.

If we do not exercise, use our muscles -- muscular atrophy can occur. In other words, if we do not use our muscles, they will deteriorate, grow smaller and weaker. If we do not keep our minds active -- mental atrophy can occur. And, if we do not exercise our spiritual muscles -- spiritual atrophy can occur. Our spiritual life becomes stagnant and grows weaker.

How do we reverse the effects of atrophy? Atrophy can be reversed with vigorous exercise and better nutrition. That formula applies to all three forms of atrophy mentioned above. Physical exercise and better nutrition will restore muscles; mental exercise and better nutrition will restore mental acuity; and spiritual exercise and a stronger diet of God's Word will keep one spiritually strong.

So, yesterday, after studying the Bible for twenty-three years -- God, through Pastor Chuck Smith, gave me new insight on His plan for marriage; His plan for the Christian family; His plan to keep us, our families, our churches, our communities, and our nation strong.

We build a stronger family when it is bases upon a Traditional Biblical Marriage, one man and one woman. We build a stronger community when it is based upon strong families held together by Biblical Standards. We build a stronger nation when it is based upon strong communities molded around strong families. And, we can only get this through having a nation built upon Traditional Biblical Marriage -- one man and one woman.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Family2_Blue-1_FAMILY
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

i believe it also says soemthign about the one responsible for instigating the divorce bearing the responsibility for the sin of adultry if the who was dumped remarries, because the divorcer is forcing the divorcee to commit the sin of adultry.

so if ted dumps alice, and bot hted and alice remarry, ted gets a double dose of sin for his adultry in remarrying, and for alice because she is forced into adultry by teds actions.

at least alice isn't gettign the shaft because ted was a putz.
The Gospel according to Mark:
Xhapter 10


2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3“What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.’c So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

...the Word of the Lord.
Bill satan serving Gray, HOW DARE you dispute the very words of my Savior Jesus the Christ ?? The same that you lie about being a disciple of.
No, you may not have as of yet, called Jesus a liar. But you have laid forth the groundwork,calling one who has disagreed with you in the past a troll.
I wonder just how you are going to explain your way out of this?
And how misunderstood you are.You should do as Peter told Simon and REPENT of thy wickedness, and pray God that perhaps the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee.

But why do I think that you will just either pick a few scriptures explaining how your right. OR Just don't respond at all.
if one is unfaithful in the marriage the other one has a right to remarry, no adultery.

if the one remarries that was unfaithful they and the one that married them are both living in adultery.

state law grants a divorce but Gods law never grants a Divorce unless there was infidelity by one participant in the marriage.

you can remarry by state Law but by Gods Law every time you copulate with your new Wife you are committing Adultery.

and if we just get mad and can't get along and Divorce then neither has the right to remarry.

and there is one more thing that I would like to add, you cant do something to cause your mate to go out and committ infidelity and then you be free to remarry, you have to be innocent.
Last edited by prince albert
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
Bill satan serving Gray, HOW DARE you dispute the very words of my Savior Jesus the Christ ?? The same that you lie about being a disciple of.
No, you may not have as of yet, called Jesus a liar. But you have laid forth the groundwork,calling one who has disagreed with you in the past a troll.
I wonder just how you are going to explain your way out of this?
And how misunderstood you are.You should do as Peter told Simon and REPENT of thy wickedness, and pray God that perhaps the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee.

But why do I think that you will just either pick a few scriptures explaining how your right. OR Just don't respond at all.


I am only on here occasionally...I actually have a life..LOL. But I really don't understand the insistance by some that Bill is satan's servant. Could someone clear this up for me? It appears very childish to the ocasional observer. Bill seems to me to know the Bible pretty well. If that doesn't match up with how we believe it would probably us all well to study the subject FROM the Bible to see what IT says and not what our church founders say or our pastor or our grandma says. I don't see Bill as offensive as much as just a Christian with lots of zeal. I admit that is using quotes from everyone is annoying but that is how he is showing what you say you believe compared to the Bible in most instances. Won't it be nice when we all get to heaven to find out the intent of each ones heart..I think we will know and I think Bill's motives will be pure even if his delivery is questionable.
As Bill would say...Have a blessed day.
Hi Savin, It's really simple. A few weeks ago some questioned Bill on his approach (rudeness) in responding to some posters.
A certain group were labeled athiest because the disagreed with some of his remarks.
The someone posted a simple question to Bill.
The asked bill if he would deny serving satan.
He has never responded to this easy question.
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
Sorry for the grammer, I can't go back and fix my mistakes for some reason.

Hi Max,

When I first came on the Forum in 2007, I had that same problem. I could post in a discussion; but, could not begin a discussion -- and I could not correct a post I had done. Also, I could not delete a post I had written.

I could respond to PMs, but, could not initiate them.

It was very frustrating and lasted for about six months; not even the TD Tech Supporters could help. Then, I found that it was because of the way I was handling cookies in my browser. You might take a look at that.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
Hi Max,

You say, "Hi Savin, It's really simple. A few weeks ago some questioned Bill on his approach (rudeness) in responding to some posters."

Disagreeing with someone is not being rude; that is the purpose of a forum -- to discuss issues -- and to, at times, disagree with one another. That is called dialogue -- and not rudeness because I disagree with you.

Then, you say, "A certain group were labeled atheist because the disagreed with some of his remarks."

If a person writes that God does not exist -- I have to assume that person is an atheist.

If a person writes that he/she is not sure that God exists -- I have to assume that person is an agnostic.

If a person writes that he/she is a Christian believer -- but, does NOT believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, literal Written Word of God -- I have to assume that person is following a Liberal Theology.

And, if someone tells me we should be accepting of all doctrines of Mariology -- I have to assume that person is a Roman Catholic.

Now, is calling each of this by their self-descriptive label -- being rude? Not in any discussion I have seen.

I do not call a person who disagrees with me an atheist -- unless what that person writes indicates that he/she does not believe God exists.

Oh, by the way, I left out one category which is well represented in my little family of antagonists: the vanilla flavored non-believer. This is the person who is afraid he/she will have to surrender some worldly pleasures if he/she becomes a Christian believer. So, to be safe -- this person walks on the other side of the street when passing a church building.

Then, you tell us, "The someone posted a simple question to Bill. The asked bill if he would deny serving satan. He has never responded to this easy question."

And, if someone asked me to put a pile of dog poop on my head and walk down the street -- I would not do that either. Some things are just to silly or inane to even consider. So, we just move on to a thought or discussion which does not come from the second grade school yard level.

Max, thank you for giving me an opportunity to relieve you of your anxieties about my answers or lack of answers. Now, can we be Friends and move on to constructive discussions?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×