what defines marriage?

While they aren't being very polite about it, both (Q) and phlogistician ...

Ah, so it's perfectly acceptable for Lori to lie, deceive and call us names, tell us how to live our lives based on her psychotic religion, but we aren't being "polite"

Puuulleeeeeze! :rolleyes:
 
Ah, so it's perfectly acceptable for Lori to lie, deceive and call us names, tell us how to live our lives based on her psychotic religion, but we aren't being "polite"

Puuulleeeeeze! :rolleyes:

i'm not telling you how to live, i'm telling you how i live. and instead of conveying how you live and why, you're attacking my decision making process, because mine involves god, and you love to hate on people who believe in god.

isn't that right?
 
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Two people making a covenant between themselves that involves God is not religious? How do you double think that one?

because god is not religion, nor religious.


How about the Torah and Talmud? The documented religious ceremonies that pre-date Christianity? Jesus attended weddings, just because the exact details of the ceremonies aren't described in detail, does not mean there were not specific ceremonies. You really are showing your dishonesty now.

well i'm not jewish either. i don't eat kosher meat, i don't observe the sabbath, i don't wear religious costumes of any sort, and i don't sacrifice animals. jesus is "the way". and it's my opinion that if god really puts that much emphasis on the ceremony, that he would have emphasized that in his word, just like he did with all of the rules regarding sex.



And you think that just vanishes? Would a death bed repentance save a serial killer? A Genocidal maniac? How little investment does one need to make to be born again? How many atrocities can one commit, and still be saved? Being born again, and 'saved' is just Christian recruiting bullshit. It's a special offer, another chance, it's SALES. It's not scripture.

you think it's bullshit because you don't believe that god could possibly exist, so you equate it with wishful thinking. what someone wants to believe for whatever reason. perhaps to make themselves feel better. but when god actually changes you to the point where you know it's god that did it, and you understand why, it's real. there is a real and observable, measurable change that occurs. because as your perception changes, it's inevitable that your behavior changes respectively.

Except the voice in your head, is you. Not God.

no, i know what it's like to talk to myself. everybody has some dialog bouncing around in their head, and when something interjects itself into that, you know it.
 
No Lori, I've lived a perfect life, never made a mistake, and never suffered from regret. This is sarcasm, btw.



God doesn't tell you about standards though. The voice in your head does. The voice that is part of your splintered personality. Hey, and guess what? That voice agrees with you! How convenient!

You don't know that God exists either. You just have a mental condition. Did you bother to read any of the articles by Michael Persinger, who demonstrated religious experiences can be recreated in the lab? I bet you daren't.

that is incorrect. the reason my perception and behavior has changed is because god did not agree with me. when i was younger, i was what religious and society alike would call a slut. i was ignorant and i knew that. and i wasn't pretending i had any answers, and i wasn't willing to just accept the answers found in religion or in societal standards. so i learned the hard way, and that's just fine with me.

because now i know, and that has made the most impactive difference in my life.
 
It does have an aspect of rewarding freedom, but he is right that it doesn't change the state of things regarding the rules of adultery in the NT.

While they aren't being very polite about it, both (Q) and phlogistician are pointing out a logical conclusion from your earlier statements: if sex equates to marriage, and a person had sex, then they are married. Given that presumption, if the Bible is Truth, then the stance the bible holds on divorce means that a person who had sex (and was therefor married) who is not currently with that initial partner, for any reason other than fornication on the part of the other person, is guilty of adultery.

Being "Born Again in Christ" means that one must give up previous ways, and that previous sins are forgiven. However, those previous sins must not be continued; previous homosexual activity is forgiven, but homosexual activity after being born again is new sin requiring further confession and forgiveness. The original "marriage" is not wiped away, as it was not a sin; any sexual union after being born again, with anyone other than the original partner/spouse, would therefor be sinful.

Within the confines of the bible, the only logical way I could see to get around this is 1) if sex is an important part of marriage, but still distinct from marriage (which you don't agree with) or 2) if the born again individual were to claim that after the breakup of the first relationship, the other partner committed adultery which is grounds for divorce post being born again. However, since the actions were mutual, this logic would seem to be a real stretch to justify - particularly if both parties converted to Christianity, and both had previous sins wiped clean.

i think it's right to say that according to scripture, you are married to whomever you have sex with, and if you have sex with someone else, it's adultery. adultery seems to be grounds for divorce, so you could also say that myself and husband or husbands in the past have been adulterous many times over and are divorced.

i say, that because of what i've done, i know you can have sex without making a covenant, and i know you can take part in a ceremony, and recite vows that you don't really mean, or don't honor.

and i wasn't willing to do those things ever again, even if that meant i would not have sex or be married again.

i was not willing to have sex with someone without making that covenant, and i was not willing to have sex with anyone who was not making that covenant, and for the same reasons i was.

i was talking to my husband about it today, and he said, that while our ceremony was a nice way to celebrate, or reiterate that covenant or those vows, that he had actually made that covenant and took those vows the first time we had sex, and he knew that we could be making a baby. he had decided that he wanted me to be his wife and the mother of his children at that time, and he demonstrated it.
 
if things like contracts and ceremonies support something real and meaningful, then great...whatever. those things are nothing but products of our society. it's when those things replace something real and meaningful that everything's in the toilet. that something that is real and meaningful doesn't come from society, it is something that comes from inside you. it's not contingent on anything but your own desires and intentions and behavior. i think it's easier to place responsibility and accountability with an institution rather than ourselves, but not as worth while.

i agree with the fact that it should be just a matter of trust..ie..someone says they love you and want to spend the rest of their life with you, you should not need any paperwork to prove that..but.. being human we need all the assurance we can get..
that piece of paper does give us a little assurance (not as much as it used to..) it is still no guarentee that you will be together for life.
the responsibility (whether you get married or not) falls to each of us individually to be sure that it is the right person

IMO
Mental,emotional,physical,spiritual, if all these needs are met by the other person. marry them.
too much focus on any one of these will result in an unbalanced relationship, and someone will get tired of it..

my no.1 rule in any relationship (not just romantic ones);
No Slams and look out for "never" and "always"..
remember this and anything can be worked out..
 
sorry but I have to add that squirrel has only been married once, common lawed once too...


has been single for awhile because he doesnt wanna go out and find a girl:p hehehe
 
i was talking to my husband about it today, and he said, that while our ceremony was a nice way to celebrate, or reiterate that covenant or those vows, that he had actually made that covenant and took those vows the first time we had sex, and he knew that we could be making a baby. he had decided that he wanted me to be his wife and the mother of his children at that time, and he demonstrated it.

that is so sweet Lori!!!
 
sorry but I have to add that squirrel has only been married once, common lawed once too...
i said that..:p

has been single for awhile because he doesnt wanna go out and find a girl:p hehehe

um..i don't think that one is very hard to figure out...:rolleyes:

because they are only in it for what they can get..if they don't get it, they are gone..or they are too messed up to take a chance with me..or i didnt do what god wanted me too..or im too lazy..or im too old..or "insert excuse here"....
 
i said that..:p



um..i don't think that one is very hard to figure out...:rolleyes:

because they are only in it for what they can get..if they don't get it, they are gone..or they are too messed up to take a chance with me..or i didnt do what god wanted me too..or im too lazy..or im too old..or "insert excuse here"....

of u don't wanna take the chance!!! Stop being so dam pickey!! ur gettin to old and ur not hot enuff to be pickey! stop going after the "MILFS" and go for the ones that seem to be interested!
 
of u don't wanna take the chance!!! Stop being so dam pickey!! ur gettin to old and ur not hot enuff to be pickey! stop going after the "MILFS" and go for the ones that seem to be interested!

heeheehee...this is funny. :D
 
heeheehee...this is funny. :D

he's soooo pickey its not even funny Lori!! he wants a girl (not trying to say he likes you but using u as an example) that has ur body type. looks like a supermodel. cooks, cleans, has her own job, does accounting on top of it, and wants a girl with a min age of 20(can be debated)... its NEVER going to happen!! So I gave him a rule, noone under 39 can be considered.. its so stupid! he doesnt want a chubby lady, yet everyones chubby!!! and he's not one to talk... his breath is repulsive!! and I tell him that ALOT! he just needs to stop being picky....
 
he's soooo pickey its not even funny Lori!! he wants a girl (not trying to say he likes you but using u as an example) that has ur body type. looks like a supermodel. cooks, cleans, has her own job, does accounting on top of it, and wants a girl with a min age of 20(can be debated)... its NEVER going to happen!! So I gave him a rule, noone under 39 can be considered.. its so stupid! he doesnt want a chubby lady, yet everyones chubby!!! and he's not one to talk... his breath is repulsive!! and I tell him that ALOT! he just needs to stop being picky....

maybe he's setting himself up on purpose.

i think it's good to be picky when choosing a mate in regards to some things, but i don't know if they're the things you mentioned necessarily.
 
he's soooo pickey its not even funny Lori!! he wants a girl (not trying to say he likes you but using u as an example) that has ur body type. looks like a supermodel. cooks, cleans, has her own job, does accounting on top of it, and wants a girl with a min age of 20(can be debated)... its NEVER going to happen!! So I gave him a rule, noone under 39 can be considered.. its so stupid! he doesnt want a chubby lady, yet everyones chubby!!! and he's not one to talk... his breath is repulsive!! and I tell him that ALOT! he just needs to stop being picky....

this is a bit off topic but if his breath is chronic it may be because he needs dental work, or has some digestive tract disorder.
 
It does have an aspect of rewarding freedom, but he is right that it doesn't change the state of things regarding the rules of adultery in the NT.

While they aren't being very polite about it, both (Q) and phlogistician are pointing out a logical conclusion from your earlier statements: if sex equates to marriage, and a person had sex, then they are married. Given that presumption, if the Bible is Truth, then the stance the bible holds on divorce means that a person who had sex (and was therefor married) who is not currently with that initial partner, for any reason other than fornication on the part of the other person, is guilty of adultery.

Being "Born Again in Christ" means that one must give up previous ways, and that previous sins are forgiven. However, those previous sins must not be continued; previous homosexual activity is forgiven, but homosexual activity after being born again is new sin requiring further confession and forgiveness. The original "marriage" is not wiped away, as it was not a sin; any sexual union after being born again, with anyone other than the original partner/spouse, would therefor be sinful.

Within the confines of the bible, the only logical way I could see to get around this is 1) if sex is an important part of marriage, but still distinct from marriage (which you don't agree with) or 2) if the born again individual were to claim that after the breakup of the first relationship, the other partner committed adultery which is grounds for divorce post being born again. However, since the actions were mutual, this logic would seem to be a real stretch to justify - particularly if both parties converted to Christianity, and both had previous sins wiped clean.

I don't think this is correct, no religious laws are retroactive. ie if you decide to adopt a religion, you cannot change what has gone before. If you want to become a Buddhist are you still forced to be a Christian because you were baptised? If you decide to become Jain and give up meat does this negate all the meat you already ate? Its when you adopt a religion that you decide to follow its laws. Otherwise anyone settling down to a committed relationship should go back to the first person they let down.
 
i'm not telling you how to live, i'm telling you how i live. and instead of conveying how you live and why, you're attacking my decision making process, because mine involves god, and you love to hate on people who believe in god.

isn't that right?

Not in the least right, once again. :)
 
i think it's right to say that according to scripture, you are married to whomever you have sex with, and if you have sex with someone else, it's adultery. adultery seems to be grounds for divorce, so you could also say that myself and husband or husbands in the past have been adulterous many times over and are divorced.

Hence, your current marriage is a sham and you both will fry.

i was talking to my husband about it today, and he said, that while our ceremony was a nice way to celebrate, or reiterate that covenant or those vows, that he had actually made that covenant and took those vows the first time we had sex, and he knew that we could be making a baby. he had decided that he wanted me to be his wife and the mother of his children at that time, and he demonstrated it.

Yes, the demonstration was fornication out of wedlock. If, and when you get divorced, you'll probably fuck someone else then and so will he, and then you'll both attempt to justify that, just like most other Christians who get married and divorced as they see fit.
 
I don't think this is correct, no religious laws are retroactive. ie if you decide to adopt a religion, you cannot change what has gone before. If you want to become a Buddhist are you still forced to be a Christian because you were baptised? If you decide to become Jain and give up meat does this negate all the meat you already ate? Its when you adopt a religion that you decide to follow its laws.

Bullshit. Anyone can believe any religion they want and it won't matter one iota what went on before. People don't adopt religions, they are adopted by religions when they are born into a family that was already indoctrinate previously.
 
because they are only in it for what they can get..if they don't get it, they are gone..or they are too messed up to take a chance with me..or i didnt do what god wanted me too..or im too lazy..or im too old..or "insert excuse here"....

... or an adulterer. Even your common law relationship was an abomination. :D
 
Hence, your current marriage is a sham and you both will fry.



Yes, the demonstration was fornication out of wedlock. If, and when you get divorced, you'll probably fuck someone else then and so will he, and then you'll both attempt to justify that, just like most other Christians who get married and divorced as they see fit.

none of what you're saying here is true. it's simply wishful thinking on your part.

apparently you equate wedlock to a religious ceremony, and i don't. it's not like i'm surprised. you don't seem to be the deep and meaningful type at all. even though you're an atheist, you are still the most religious person i know. that's a bad thing.
 
Back
Top