Marriage is meant originally for believers !

It is ? ROFLMAO!!!

Let me guess because believers who marry don't experience the same problems non-believers do in marriage? And all persons who are believers today were born from other believers??

Actually this is completely true. And the fact that believers also fail at it does not make it any less true. It just makes it tragic. What marriage is, in reality, is a grafting of two living plants to make them one. The unbeliever is by definition dead, the believer is very much living. When two believers agree to share their lives and seek the blessing of the Lord and His Church in this regard, true marriage happens. This kind of marriage is in the truest sense unbreakable and irrevocable as far as the Lord is concerned. Even divorce does not break it. This is because it is first spiritual and then material.

Two unbelievers are too dead to be found in the courts of the Prince of Life. A dead plant cannot be grafted into a living tree nor can it be done the other way around. So the marriage of a believer and an unbeliever is a lie. It is only possible as long as the unbeliever is pleased to remain in it.

None of this means that two unbelievers cannot make a great "marriage", after all, Satan does masquerade as an angel of light and Babylon has been shown to be capable of beauty, even if it is a beauty that covers incredible ugliness. Nor does it mean that two believers cannot make a terrible marriage, just that even the worst possible marriage between two believers is still very much a marriage in the eyes of the Lord and will never rank among the marriage of unbelievers. What's more, however bad the marriage of two believers could get, the Lord Who built that house can fix it and make it better than it ever was, after all, He is the God of Resurrection, is He not?

So, yes, my brother, you are right. And no, my sister, your spirit is wrong.

I disagree. People can get married n give their lives to Christ later on. Pending when they repent, are they supposed to keep multiple sexx partners. Grew up with my parents blasting Fela on Sundays n now na them go church pass. Honestly, some christian homes suck IMO. John Wesley did have some marital issues, you know. All u need for a successful union is love, long term compatibility n a fierce determination that ur marriage'll work. Does God make this easier? Yes - especially when the love is wearing out.

Gloriagee: I disagree. People can get married n give their lives to Christ later on. Pending when they repent, are they supposed to keep multiple sexx partners. Grew up with my parents blasting Fela on Sundays n now na them go church pass. Honestly, some christian homes suck IMO. John Wesley did have some marital issues, you know. All u need for a successful union is love, long term compatibility n a fierce determination that ur marriage'll work. Does God make this easier? Yes - especially when the love is wearing out.

You probably need to reread my post. It was an explanation of my brother's submission.

But u said it's completely true, naa .

Ihedinobi: Actually this is completely true. And the fact that believers also fail at it does not make it any less true.

So, yes, my brother, you are right. And no, my sister, your spirit is wrong.

It's all good, tho

.

Gloriagee: But u said it's completely true, naa .



It's all good, tho

I most certainly did, sis. And I know it is. I suggested a rereading because I'd already answered your protests in my post.

Still disagree. People- even Christians have definite roles to play if their marriages would be successful. Knowing/Serving God would not absolve one of this role. He could fix John Wesley's marriage but did not cos ultimately the outcome of the marriage would be dependent on J. Wesley and his spouse's choices. The Holy Spirit would most likely prod the believer to make the right choices but what if the believer refuses?

Ihedinobi:
just that even the worst possible marriage between two believers is still very much a marriage in the eyes of the Lord and will never rank among the marriage of unbelievers. What's more, however bad the marriage of two believers could get, the Lord Who built that house can fix it and make it better than it ever was, after all, He is the God of Resurrection, is He not?

When God was chastising the Isrealites for divorce etc in Malachi, it did not necessarily mean the spiritual lives of the Israelites was top notch. He said he hates divorce cos it hurts the spirits of the wives of the youth. When John the Baptist was scolding Herod for stealing his brother's wife - it wasn't because Herod was a believer. It just means God respects the covenant of marriage.

Opinions are mine entirely

Gloriagee: Still disagree. People- even Christians have definite roles to play if their marriages would be successful. Knowing/Serving God would not absolve one of this role. He could fix John Wesley's marriage but did not cos ultimately the outcome of the marriage would be dependent on J. Wesley and his spouse's choices. The Holy Spirit would most likely prod the believer to make the right choices but what if the believer refuses?

What if the believer refuses, my sister? We aren't talking about good and bad marriages, just what marriage truly is.

I already said, as in my quote which you reproduced, that two believers can still have a bad marriage. That is akin to saying that believers can still sin after being born again. That is only stating a really tragic fact, my sister. If how we will define marriage is whose house is the quietest, then some atheists and unbelievers ought to be sitting in the highest places in heaven to the exclusion of some believers, don't you agree?

True marriage is only possible between Christians. But the success of even that is hugely dependent, just as you have said, on the believers' choices.

When God was chastising the Isrealites for divorce etc in Malachi, it did not necessarily mean the spiritual lives of the Israelites was top notch. He said he hates divorce cos it hurts the spirits of the wives of the youth. When John the Baptist was scolding Herod for stealing his brother's wife - it wasn't because Herod was a believer. It just means God respects the covenant of marriage.

Opinions are mine entirely

First off, try to forget about opinion here, can you? Whatever you choose to believe or think is entirely your prerogative, but the point of sharing them and having social and intellectual intercourse with other people is to distill those beliefs and opinions you hold. You could go on disagreeing with me and I won't mind, but if you disagree, then I have the challenge to bring you to agreement or bend to your own convictions if they are proved true.

Having said that, God "respects" the covenant of marriage just as much as He "respects" any given human being's right to reject the Gospel and remain in sin. Either of those still have consequences. God has a distinct conception of marriage and He only blesses that conception. An irrevocable curse lies on all other concepts even though He respects their right to exist. Now, don't read "curse" to mean that God will jealously destroy any concept of marriage of which He doesn't approve the same way a jealous man does. The absence of God's blessing is itself the curse.

God defines marriage in that very same Malachi to which you refered. It is a covenant ratified by God between a male and a female Israelite. As far as the Most High is concerned, there is no other thing called marriage. But God "respects" the fact that two people who aren't believers decide to vow their lives to each other. As the impartial judge that He is, He lays also upon them the requirements of marriage, His expectations of the union. But anyone who has been taught knows that every seed not planted by the Father of our Lord Jesus (and there are a great many such) shall be rooted up. They will never bear the fruit of which Malachi 2:15 spoke which is the whole reason for marriage.

That God permits a thing does not mean that He approves of it, my sister. Never be confused about that. If a godly seed is not possible from the union, it is not a marriage on the eyes of the Lord. And, oh, we're not talking merely of little kids with big bibles here.

Yeah, I should also point out, or rather, emphasise that being unbelievers does not in any way mean that a married couple is free to keep multiple sexual partners anyore than God's patience with unbelievers means that they should become even worse unbelievers.

I'm still standing o.

What u're saying is that a believer's bad marriage is better than a non believer's own? Right? A volatile marriage between believers is berra than one between non believers? OK o

m.k.o2005:
Marriage is meant originally for believers !

What believers ...hindu, muslims, xtians, gays, political parties, ....

Be specific..

Believers of what. . .

Polyandry?
Polygamy?
Open Marriage?
Co-Habitation?
Meeenage à trois?

Gosh there are so many things to believe in, yes?

Christian marriage is meant for Christian believers? I agree.

Muslim marriage for Muslim believers.

Traditional marriage for traditional believers.

Sango marriage for Sango believers...etc.

Even though you are a Christian, I presume, try and broaden your scope. Marriage has been on in this planet years before Christianity. Jews were practicing marriage even before our Lord Jesus was born.

Na wah...I really dislike the lunatic fringe of my religion.

Please define 'believers' then go ahead and tell me, marriage and beliefs which one is the oldest.
if you tell me about Adam believing in God made him a believer then marriage to as many women as possible is not a big deal

Read http://www.ourweddingstorynigeria.com/index.php?title=weddingstories real wedding stories

Marriage is not compulsory simple.

Gloriagee: I'm still standing o.

What u're saying is that a believer's bad marriage is better than a non believer's own? Right? A volatile marriage between believers is berra than one between non believers? OK o

A believer who committed murder in some passionate rage and Ghandi, who's better? You're a Christian, right?

Being a believer and being an unbeliever, which do you think is better?

I don't even believe in marriage....

ypzilanti: Christian marriage is meant for Christian believers? I agree.

Muslim marriage for Muslim believers.

Traditional marriage for traditional believers.

Sango marriage for Sango believers...etc.

Even though you are a Christian, I presume, try and broaden your scope. Marriage has been on in this planet years before Christianity. Jews were practicing marriage even before our Lord Jesus was born.

Na wah...I really dislike the lunatic fringe of my religion.

Gbam.I think the better title should have been Christian Marriages are meant for Christians

ACTUALLY MOST COUPLES START OUT AS BELIEVERS

THEN THEY BECOME UNBELIEVERS

Question 1 - Ghandi. I'd never choose a murderer over someone who's life benefited others.

Question 2 - Definitely being a believer

Christians have to realise that being half baked does more harm than good in the long run. Some peeps have sworn off christianity and termed christians hypocrites, cos of some 'passionate rage'

Crap! Which believers? The word is rather broad and vague. If you mean Christians, you should know that marriage has always existed even before Jesus came to the earth. Adam and Eve showed great disbelief when they disobeyed, yet God did not dissolve their marriage. Why? Because marriage was not made for believers only but for humans (for the sake of companionship and procreation).

True, Bible principles can help us have a happier marriage and family life, but saying only believers (in whatever) have a right to marriage is an utterly senseless statement and is bigotry birthed from ignorance.

m.k.o2005:
Marriage is meant originally for believers !

[size=45]tell me more[/size]

Mbok, believers of what?

Gloriagee: Question 1 - Ghandi. I'd never choose a murderer over someone who's life benefited others.

Question 2 - Definitely being a believer

Christians have to realise that being half baked does more harm than good in the long run. Some peeps have sworn off christianity and termed christians hypocrites, cos of some 'passionate rage'

Your answers are contradictory, or they appear so. Why's that?

Oahray: Crap! Which believers? The word is rather broad and vague. If you mean Christians, you should know that marriage has always existed even before Jesus came to the earth. Adam and Eve showed great disbelief when they disobeyed, yet God did not dissolve their marriage. Why? Because marriage was not made for believers only but for humans (for the sake of companuIionship and procreation).

True, Bible principles can help us have a happier marriage and family life, but saying only believers (in whatever) have a right to marriage is an utterly senseless statement and is bigotry birthed from ignorance.

Ideally speaking, should all humans be believers?

You can't get into marriage unless you totally believe in it.

Ihedinobi:

Ideally speaking, should all humans be believers?

believers in what or whom?