Topic: sex.
+Anonymous A — 6.7 years ago #54,042
have it.
+Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 17 minutes later[T] [B] #571,647
Within the confines of marriage, you forgot to add.
+Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,649
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,650
+Anonymous D — 6.7 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,652
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,653
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 43 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,654
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,656
·Anonymous D — 6.7 years ago, 43 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,658
@571,653 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > Did you marry the young boys you have molested?
>
> Woeful grammar. Just woeful.
But you don't deny molesting young boys?
> > Did you marry the young boys you have molested?
>
> Woeful grammar. Just woeful.
But you don't deny molesting young boys?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,659
@previous (D)
> > > Did you marry the young boys you have molested?
> >
> > Woeful grammar. Just woeful.
>
> But you don't deny molesting young boys?
I never confirm or deny anything on here. I give out information on my own terms :)
> > > Did you marry the young boys you have molested?
> >
> > Woeful grammar. Just woeful.
>
> But you don't deny molesting young boys?
I never confirm or deny anything on here. I give out information on my own terms :)
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 34 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,662
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,663
+Anonymous E — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,668
+Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,669
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,671
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,674
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 59 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,676
+Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 45 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,678
I love sex
+Anonymous H — 6.7 years ago, 21 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,682
@571,676 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Smiling can be interpreted as affirmation. Can we take your smiling to say that "lol pedofilth" is an accurate accusation made against you?
Smiling can be interpreted as affirmation. Can we take your smiling to say that "lol pedofilth" is an accurate accusation made against you?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,684
@previous (H)
> Smiling can be interpreted as affirmation. Can we take your smiling to say that "lol pedofilth" is an accurate accusation made against you?
You are free to take things however you choose my child :)
> Smiling can be interpreted as affirmation. Can we take your smiling to say that "lol pedofilth" is an accurate accusation made against you?
You are free to take things however you choose my child :)
·Anonymous H — 6.7 years ago, 22 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,689
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
So you can't deny that "pedofilth" is an accurate adjective when describing yourself. Thank you, that'll be all. :)
So you can't deny that "pedofilth" is an accurate adjective when describing yourself. Thank you, that'll be all. :)
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,691
·Anonymous A (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,692
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,693
@571,689 (H)
> So you won't deny that "pedofilth" is an accurate adjective when describing yourself.
Nope :)
> So you won't deny that "pedofilth" is an accurate adjective when describing yourself.
Nope :)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 12 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,694
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 44 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,699
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,703
·Anonymous E — 6.7 years ago, 4 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[T] [B] #571,751
+Anonymous I — 6.7 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #571,834
Where is this sex?
+Anonymous J — 6.7 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #571,850
@571,647 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Adam and Eve were not married. None of those doing the begats were married. None of us could be here if not for those non married got us all going from the get go.
Jesus never married. Of course Jesus was a Homosexual.
Adam and Eve were not married. None of those doing the begats were married. None of us could be here if not for those non married got us all going from the get go.
Jesus never married. Of course Jesus was a Homosexual.
·Anonymous E — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #571,863
@previous (J)
> Adam and Eve were not married.
Of course they were you dunce. It was the ordainment of the institution of marriage.
> Adam and Eve were not married.
Of course they were you dunce. It was the ordainment of the institution of marriage.
+ !byMEuFolZk — 6.7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #571,867
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/843-marriage-as-designed-by-god
The institution of marriage involves a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Man and woman, by mutual consent, enter the arrangement. But the procedure, in order to be valid, must be consistent with divine law.
The Origin of Marriage
According to anthropologists, there is no society wherein marriage does not exist in some format (Montague, p. 240). The institution is, therefore, a universal phenomenon. Since every effect must have an adequate cause, there must be some reasonable explanation for this feature of global society. Actually, there are but two logical possibilities. Marriage either is of supernatural origin, or it had a naturalistic beginning.
Those who subscribe to the theory of evolution allege that marriage is “a human development from animal mating relationships” (Huxley, p. 34). A writer in a popular encyclopedia says:
“Some scholars are in inclined to trace the origin of marriage to pairing arrangements of animals below man. Studies reveal that a more or less permanent association between one or more males and one or more females is common among birds and higher mammals” (Locke, p. 311).
A more slippery statement will be hard to find. Is it “more or less ... one or more”? The fact is, such a theory is seriously flawed. While it is true that some creatures apparently mate for life (e.g. some species of geese), the ape family, supposedly higher on the evolutionary scale than birds, is quite “promiscuous”! That does not square with the notion that marriage gradually developed as various kinds of organisms were becoming more sophisticated.
Biblical teaching is unequivocal. Jehovah created man, and from his side – in earth’s initial surgical procedure – fashioned his wife. The two were designed to “cleave” to one another (Gen. 2:21-25). In a discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus cited this Old Testament evidence, and declared: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6).
Here is a crucial point. If it is the case that marriage was designed and inaugurated by the Creator, then he has the authority to set the rules. Men and women do not have the right to treat this sacred human relationship in a cavalier, self-directed manner.
The Traits of Marriage
In order for a human relationship to be correctly classified as a “marriage,” certain components must be in place.
First, the marriage, is a relationship between a man and a woman. Increasingly, a degenerate world is pushing for same-sex “marriages.” Who knows what may become “legal” before this mess is over; whatever happens, Sodomite unions will never be “marriage” with the approbation of Heaven. Professor John Davis has noted:
“The first marriage that God performed is quite clearly a pattern. Those who attempt to mount a biblical case for homosexuality must completely abandon reasonable hermeneutics” (p. 78).
Second, marriage was designed to be a strictly monogamous arrangement. Early on, however, rebellious man decided it could be otherwise. Lamech, a descendant of Cain was the first polygamist (Gen. 4:19). The manner in which this incident is introduced reveals it to have been a spiritual aberration. While polygamy was “suffered” (tolerated) during the dispensations of the Os Testament era, it was never the divine ideal, and history reveals that numerous heartaches accompanied this innovation (cf. Gen. 21 :9ff; 30:1-24; 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kgs. 11:1-3). Jesus indicated that such laxness would not be allowed under the Christian regime; he called men back to God’s original plan (Mt. 19:8).
Third, marriage was designed with a hierarchial arrangement. The New Testament is clear that the husband is to he the “head” of his wife, just as Christ is head of the church. The wife is to “submit” to her husband (Eph. 5:22ff; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3). This is no license for a dictatorship or any form of abuse, but it does acknowledge a graduation of authority within the home.
Some allow that the term “rule” (Gen. 3:16), is a divine mandate for man’s authority over woman (Jacobus, p. 125); others opine it merely prophetically indicates, as a natural consequence of human apostasy, women frequently would be degraded and abused, being viewed in some cultures as mere property (Aalders, pp. 108-109). Tragically, this has been the case far too often. Both ideas may, be involved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12-15).
A husband who loves his wife will provide gentle leadership; he will not assume the role of a “tin god” who attempts to rule his wife with an iron fist.
Fourth, the marriage union was intended to be a lifelong arrangement. Husband and wife are to “cleave” to one another (Gen. 2:24). Jesus emphasized that what God “hath joined together” man is not to separate (Mt. 19:6), because, ideally, the husband and wife are bound together by law until the death of one of these parties (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39); the exception will be discussed later. Though it is the fad in our modern world, husbands and wives do not have the right to change marital partners as easily as they would change a garment!
The Purpose of Marriage
Having given some consideration to the sacred traits of the marriage union, it is now appropriate that we raise this question: Why did God ordain marriage?
First, marriage accommodates our social needs. “No man is an island,” wrote the poet, and the song lyrics assert, “people need people.” The sacred Godhead has enjoyed eternal fellowship, and we have been fashioned in the image of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26). There is a sense, then, in which we have “inherited” a need for companionship. The need is most ideally fulfilled in the marriage union. As a general rule, in is “not good to be alone” (Gen. 2:18).
Second, marriage provides the means for the gratification of sexual desire — a virtuous, God-given inclination. The Creator never intended, however, for human beings to engage in promiscuous sexual liaisons. Sexual activity outside of a legitimate marriage commitment is fornication. But if one desires not to live celibate, he is free to marry to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:1-2).
Third, a home sanctified by marriage affords the ideal environment for the rearing of children. The conception of children is to follow marriage (Gen. 4:1; 1 Tim. 5:14), not the reverse. The Lord never intended that human beings “breed” like beasts. How heartbreaking it is that so many are bringing children into this world without the benefit of a two-parent home.
Fourth, the husband and wife arrangement was intended to facilitate the divine plan for human redemption. This point cannot be pressed too strongly. Let me amplify.
Jehovah, in his infinite knowledge, knew — even before the world was formed — that humanity would stray, and so need the atoning sacrifice of his Son (Eph. 1:3ff: 1 Pet. 1:20). That being the case, one must conclude that everything the Creator did, throughout the ages of Old Testament history, ultimately, was in view of the coming of Christ. The very first thing on the sacred agenda was the institution of marriage. We must acknowledge, therefore, that this relationship is intimately connected with Heaven’s plan for human salvation.
The marriage relationship is the “cement” that binds society together. Professor Mark McVann describes the family arrangement as “the foundation of society itself” (p. 77). When family life unravels, national devastation is certain to follow eventually.
It is within the marriage-blessed home that children first learn the principles of responsibility, justice, and the respect for authority. When these virtues have been neglected in a youngster, he or she makes a poor candidate for the gospel.
Too, the warm love between husband and wife is frequently used in scripture as an apt illustration for the affection and devotion that God has for his people (cf. Ezek. 16:6ff; Eph. 5:22ff). Marriage ought to he an abiding reminder of Heaven’s love for us.
Here is why these points are so crucial. They help explain why the laws regarding marriage are so strict. A breakdown in this institution undermines acceptation of the gospel.
Hear this then: Religious leaders — both in and out of the church — who compromise God’s regulations on marriage and divorce are enemies of the cross of Christ! What a burden to bear.
The Binding Nature of Marriage
As mentioned above, God desires that the marriage commitment remain intact as long as both mates are living. We must also note that the marital union does not obtain beyond death (Mt. 22:30; Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39). The Mormon church, of course, teaches otherwise, alleging the “eternity of the marriage covenant” (Doctrine & Covenants, p. 132).
“Divorce” is alien to God’s holy purpose for man. Jehovah, through a prophet, announced: “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16 – NASB). A divorce cannot occur without selfishness — a disregard for Heaven’s will by at least one of the marital partners.
In a recently published book, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Post-Modern Society, author Glenn Stanton has assembled a massive array of evidence, surveying a century of social studies, which forcefully demonstrates the lasting trauma that divorce wreaks upon both adults and children. For example, divorcees are more likely to become addicted to alcohol, commit suicide, be subject to depression, etc., than are members of stable marriages.
Too, children of divorced parents are much more prone to both mental and physical ailments than children of undivorced parents. For a summary of this material, see ""The Devastating Effects of Divorce"".
the rest is tl;dr
see link
The institution of marriage involves a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Man and woman, by mutual consent, enter the arrangement. But the procedure, in order to be valid, must be consistent with divine law.
The Origin of Marriage
According to anthropologists, there is no society wherein marriage does not exist in some format (Montague, p. 240). The institution is, therefore, a universal phenomenon. Since every effect must have an adequate cause, there must be some reasonable explanation for this feature of global society. Actually, there are but two logical possibilities. Marriage either is of supernatural origin, or it had a naturalistic beginning.
Those who subscribe to the theory of evolution allege that marriage is “a human development from animal mating relationships” (Huxley, p. 34). A writer in a popular encyclopedia says:
“Some scholars are in inclined to trace the origin of marriage to pairing arrangements of animals below man. Studies reveal that a more or less permanent association between one or more males and one or more females is common among birds and higher mammals” (Locke, p. 311).
A more slippery statement will be hard to find. Is it “more or less ... one or more”? The fact is, such a theory is seriously flawed. While it is true that some creatures apparently mate for life (e.g. some species of geese), the ape family, supposedly higher on the evolutionary scale than birds, is quite “promiscuous”! That does not square with the notion that marriage gradually developed as various kinds of organisms were becoming more sophisticated.
Biblical teaching is unequivocal. Jehovah created man, and from his side – in earth’s initial surgical procedure – fashioned his wife. The two were designed to “cleave” to one another (Gen. 2:21-25). In a discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus cited this Old Testament evidence, and declared: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6).
Here is a crucial point. If it is the case that marriage was designed and inaugurated by the Creator, then he has the authority to set the rules. Men and women do not have the right to treat this sacred human relationship in a cavalier, self-directed manner.
The Traits of Marriage
In order for a human relationship to be correctly classified as a “marriage,” certain components must be in place.
First, the marriage, is a relationship between a man and a woman. Increasingly, a degenerate world is pushing for same-sex “marriages.” Who knows what may become “legal” before this mess is over; whatever happens, Sodomite unions will never be “marriage” with the approbation of Heaven. Professor John Davis has noted:
“The first marriage that God performed is quite clearly a pattern. Those who attempt to mount a biblical case for homosexuality must completely abandon reasonable hermeneutics” (p. 78).
Second, marriage was designed to be a strictly monogamous arrangement. Early on, however, rebellious man decided it could be otherwise. Lamech, a descendant of Cain was the first polygamist (Gen. 4:19). The manner in which this incident is introduced reveals it to have been a spiritual aberration. While polygamy was “suffered” (tolerated) during the dispensations of the Os Testament era, it was never the divine ideal, and history reveals that numerous heartaches accompanied this innovation (cf. Gen. 21 :9ff; 30:1-24; 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kgs. 11:1-3). Jesus indicated that such laxness would not be allowed under the Christian regime; he called men back to God’s original plan (Mt. 19:8).
Third, marriage was designed with a hierarchial arrangement. The New Testament is clear that the husband is to he the “head” of his wife, just as Christ is head of the church. The wife is to “submit” to her husband (Eph. 5:22ff; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3). This is no license for a dictatorship or any form of abuse, but it does acknowledge a graduation of authority within the home.
Some allow that the term “rule” (Gen. 3:16), is a divine mandate for man’s authority over woman (Jacobus, p. 125); others opine it merely prophetically indicates, as a natural consequence of human apostasy, women frequently would be degraded and abused, being viewed in some cultures as mere property (Aalders, pp. 108-109). Tragically, this has been the case far too often. Both ideas may, be involved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12-15).
A husband who loves his wife will provide gentle leadership; he will not assume the role of a “tin god” who attempts to rule his wife with an iron fist.
Fourth, the marriage union was intended to be a lifelong arrangement. Husband and wife are to “cleave” to one another (Gen. 2:24). Jesus emphasized that what God “hath joined together” man is not to separate (Mt. 19:6), because, ideally, the husband and wife are bound together by law until the death of one of these parties (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39); the exception will be discussed later. Though it is the fad in our modern world, husbands and wives do not have the right to change marital partners as easily as they would change a garment!
The Purpose of Marriage
Having given some consideration to the sacred traits of the marriage union, it is now appropriate that we raise this question: Why did God ordain marriage?
First, marriage accommodates our social needs. “No man is an island,” wrote the poet, and the song lyrics assert, “people need people.” The sacred Godhead has enjoyed eternal fellowship, and we have been fashioned in the image of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26). There is a sense, then, in which we have “inherited” a need for companionship. The need is most ideally fulfilled in the marriage union. As a general rule, in is “not good to be alone” (Gen. 2:18).
Second, marriage provides the means for the gratification of sexual desire — a virtuous, God-given inclination. The Creator never intended, however, for human beings to engage in promiscuous sexual liaisons. Sexual activity outside of a legitimate marriage commitment is fornication. But if one desires not to live celibate, he is free to marry to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:1-2).
Third, a home sanctified by marriage affords the ideal environment for the rearing of children. The conception of children is to follow marriage (Gen. 4:1; 1 Tim. 5:14), not the reverse. The Lord never intended that human beings “breed” like beasts. How heartbreaking it is that so many are bringing children into this world without the benefit of a two-parent home.
Fourth, the husband and wife arrangement was intended to facilitate the divine plan for human redemption. This point cannot be pressed too strongly. Let me amplify.
Jehovah, in his infinite knowledge, knew — even before the world was formed — that humanity would stray, and so need the atoning sacrifice of his Son (Eph. 1:3ff: 1 Pet. 1:20). That being the case, one must conclude that everything the Creator did, throughout the ages of Old Testament history, ultimately, was in view of the coming of Christ. The very first thing on the sacred agenda was the institution of marriage. We must acknowledge, therefore, that this relationship is intimately connected with Heaven’s plan for human salvation.
The marriage relationship is the “cement” that binds society together. Professor Mark McVann describes the family arrangement as “the foundation of society itself” (p. 77). When family life unravels, national devastation is certain to follow eventually.
It is within the marriage-blessed home that children first learn the principles of responsibility, justice, and the respect for authority. When these virtues have been neglected in a youngster, he or she makes a poor candidate for the gospel.
Too, the warm love between husband and wife is frequently used in scripture as an apt illustration for the affection and devotion that God has for his people (cf. Ezek. 16:6ff; Eph. 5:22ff). Marriage ought to he an abiding reminder of Heaven’s love for us.
Here is why these points are so crucial. They help explain why the laws regarding marriage are so strict. A breakdown in this institution undermines acceptation of the gospel.
Hear this then: Religious leaders — both in and out of the church — who compromise God’s regulations on marriage and divorce are enemies of the cross of Christ! What a burden to bear.
The Binding Nature of Marriage
As mentioned above, God desires that the marriage commitment remain intact as long as both mates are living. We must also note that the marital union does not obtain beyond death (Mt. 22:30; Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39). The Mormon church, of course, teaches otherwise, alleging the “eternity of the marriage covenant” (Doctrine & Covenants, p. 132).
“Divorce” is alien to God’s holy purpose for man. Jehovah, through a prophet, announced: “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16 – NASB). A divorce cannot occur without selfishness — a disregard for Heaven’s will by at least one of the marital partners.
In a recently published book, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Post-Modern Society, author Glenn Stanton has assembled a massive array of evidence, surveying a century of social studies, which forcefully demonstrates the lasting trauma that divorce wreaks upon both adults and children. For example, divorcees are more likely to become addicted to alcohol, commit suicide, be subject to depression, etc., than are members of stable marriages.
Too, children of divorced parents are much more prone to both mental and physical ailments than children of undivorced parents. For a summary of this material, see ""The Devastating Effects of Divorce"".
the rest is tl;dr
see link
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·Dr. Chattanooga !!SlFawOoKvd — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,868
@previous (!byMEuFolZk)> https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/843-marriage-as-designed-by-god
> The institution of marriage involves a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Man and woman, by mutual consent, enter the arrangement. But the procedure, in order to be valid, must be consistent with divine law.
>
> The Origin of Marriage
> According to anthropologists, there is no society wherein marriage does not exist in some format (Montague, p. 240). The institution is, therefore, a universal phenomenon. Since every effect must have an adequate cause, there must be some reasonable explanation for this feature of global society. Actually, there are but two logical possibilities. Marriage either is of supernatural origin, or it had a naturalistic beginning.
>
> Those who subscribe to the theory of evolution allege that marriage is “a human development from animal mating relationships” (Huxley, p. 34). A writer in a popular encyclopedia says:
>
> “Some scholars are in inclined to trace the origin of marriage to pairing arrangements of animals below man. Studies reveal that a more or less permanent association between one or more males and one or more females is common among birds and higher mammals” (Locke, p. 311).
>
> A more slippery statement will be hard to find. Is it “more or less ... one or more”? The fact is, such a theory is seriously flawed. While it is true that some creatures apparently mate for life (e.g. some species of geese), the ape family, supposedly higher on the evolutionary scale than birds, is quite “promiscuous”! That does not square with the notion that marriage gradually developed as various kinds of organisms were becoming more sophisticated.
>
> Biblical teaching is unequivocal. Jehovah created man, and from his side – in earth’s initial surgical procedure – fashioned his wife. The two were designed to “cleave” to one another (Gen. 2:21-25). In a discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus cited this Old Testament evidence, and declared: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6).
>
> Here is a crucial point. If it is the case that marriage was designed and inaugurated by the Creator, then he has the authority to set the rules. Men and women do not have the right to treat this sacred human relationship in a cavalier, self-directed manner.
>
> The Traits of Marriage
> In order for a human relationship to be correctly classified as a “marriage,” certain components must be in place.
>
> First, the marriage, is a relationship between a man and a woman. Increasingly, a degenerate world is pushing for same-sex “marriages.” Who knows what may become “legal” before this mess is over; whatever happens, Sodomite unions will never be “marriage” with the approbation of Heaven. Professor John Davis has noted:
>
> “The first marriage that God performed is quite clearly a pattern. Those who attempt to mount a biblical case for homosexuality must completely abandon reasonable hermeneutics” (p. 78).
>
> Second, marriage was designed to be a strictly monogamous arrangement. Early on, however, rebellious man decided it could be otherwise. Lamech, a descendant of Cain was the first polygamist (Gen. 4:19). The manner in which this incident is introduced reveals it to have been a spiritual aberration. While polygamy was “suffered” (tolerated) during the dispensations of the Os Testament era, it was never the divine ideal, and history reveals that numerous heartaches accompanied this innovation (cf. Gen. 21 :9ff; 30:1-24; 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kgs. 11:1-3). Jesus indicated that such laxness would not be allowed under the Christian regime; he called men back to God’s original plan (Mt. 19:8).
>
> Third, marriage was designed with a hierarchial arrangement. The New Testament is clear that the husband is to he the “head” of his wife, just as Christ is head of the church. The wife is to “submit” to her husband (Eph. 5:22ff; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3). This is no license for a dictatorship or any form of abuse, but it does acknowledge a graduation of authority within the home.
>
> Some allow that the term “rule” (Gen. 3:16), is a divine mandate for man’s authority over woman (Jacobus, p. 125); others opine it merely prophetically indicates, as a natural consequence of human apostasy, women frequently would be degraded and abused, being viewed in some cultures as mere property (Aalders, pp. 108-109). Tragically, this has been the case far too often. Both ideas may, be involved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12-15).
>
> A husband who loves his wife will provide gentle leadership; he will not assume the role of a “tin god” who attempts to rule his wife with an iron fist.
>
> Fourth, the marriage union was intended to be a lifelong arrangement. Husband and wife are to “cleave” to one another (Gen. 2:24). Jesus emphasized that what God “hath joined together” man is not to separate (Mt. 19:6), because, ideally, the husband and wife are bound together by law until the death of one of these parties (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39); the exception will be discussed later. Though it is the fad in our modern world, husbands and wives do not have the right to change marital partners as easily as they would change a garment!
>
> The Purpose of Marriage
> Having given some consideration to the sacred traits of the marriage union, it is now appropriate that we raise this question: Why did God ordain marriage?
>
> First, marriage accommodates our social needs. “No man is an island,” wrote the poet, and the song lyrics assert, “people need people.” The sacred Godhead has enjoyed eternal fellowship, and we have been fashioned in the image of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26). There is a sense, then, in which we have “inherited” a need for companionship. The need is most ideally fulfilled in the marriage union. As a general rule, in is “not good to be alone” (Gen. 2:18).
>
> Second, marriage provides the means for the gratification of sexual desire — a virtuous, God-given inclination. The Creator never intended, however, for human beings to engage in promiscuous sexual liaisons. Sexual activity outside of a legitimate marriage commitment is fornication. But if one desires not to live celibate, he is free to marry to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:1-2).
>
> Third, a home sanctified by marriage affords the ideal environment for the rearing of children. The conception of children is to follow marriage (Gen. 4:1; 1 Tim. 5:14), not the reverse. The Lord never intended that human beings “breed” like beasts. How heartbreaking it is that so many are bringing children into this world without the benefit of a two-parent home.
>
> Fourth, the husband and wife arrangement was intended to facilitate the divine plan for human redemption. This point cannot be pressed too strongly. Let me amplify.
>
> Jehovah, in his infinite knowledge, knew — even before the world was formed — that humanity would stray, and so need the atoning sacrifice of his Son (Eph. 1:3ff: 1 Pet. 1:20). That being the case, one must conclude that everything the Creator did, throughout the ages of Old Testament history, ultimately, was in view of the coming of Christ. The very first thing on the sacred agenda was the institution of marriage. We must acknowledge, therefore, that this relationship is intimately connected with Heaven’s plan for human salvation.
>
> The marriage relationship is the “cement” that binds society together. Professor Mark McVann describes the family arrangement as “the foundation of society itself” (p. 77). When family life unravels, national devastation is certain to follow eventually.
>
> It is within the marriage-blessed home that children first learn the principles of responsibility, justice, and the respect for authority. When these virtues have been neglected in a youngster, he or she makes a poor candidate for the gospel.
>
> Too, the warm love between husband and wife is frequently used in scripture as an apt illustration for the affection and devotion that God has for his people (cf. Ezek. 16:6ff; Eph. 5:22ff). Marriage ought to he an abiding reminder of Heaven’s love for us.
>
> Here is why these points are so crucial. They help explain why the laws regarding marriage are so strict. A breakdown in this institution undermines acceptation of the gospel.
>
> Hear this then: Religious leaders — both in and out of the church — who compromise God’s regulations on marriage and divorce are enemies of the cross of Christ! What a burden to bear.
>
> The Binding Nature of Marriage
> As mentioned above, God desires that the marriage commitment remain intact as long as both mates are living. We must also note that the marital union does not obtain beyond death (Mt. 22:30; Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39). The Mormon church, of course, teaches otherwise, alleging the “eternity of the marriage covenant” (Doctrine & Covenants, p. 132).
>
> “Divorce” is alien to God’s holy purpose for man. Jehovah, through a prophet, announced: “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16 – NASB). A divorce cannot occur without selfishness — a disregard for Heaven’s will by at least one of the marital partners.
>
> In a recently published book, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Post-Modern Society, author Glenn Stanton has assembled a massive array of evidence, surveying a century of social studies, which forcefully demonstrates the lasting trauma that divorce wreaks upon both adults and children. For example, divorcees are more likely to become addicted to alcohol, commit suicide, be subject to depression, etc., than are members of stable marriages.
>
> Too, children of divorced parents are much more prone to both mental and physical ailments than children of undivorced parents. For a summary of this material, see ""The Devastating Effects of Divorce"".
>
> the rest is tl;dr
> see link
Thanks, Google.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,874
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,888
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,894
+Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,944
+Anonymous M — 6.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,947
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 59 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,949
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,956
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 40 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #571,959
+Anonymous N — 6.7 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,020
@571,944 (L)
> Can you prove they were? Relevant bible passage please.
Notice he is incapable of proving anything.
> Can you prove they were? Relevant bible passage please.
Notice he is incapable of proving anything.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.