Believers of what?

Oahray: Alright, Abraham, Noah, David, Samuel, Moses and a host of others were not christians. Were they unrighteous for that sole fact? I'm sure that answers your question.

Even Jesus says everyone cannot be on the road to life, so your question whether everyone should be a believer is unnecessary.

It saddens me when I see many fellow Christians acting all self-righteous cos of a religious name-tag when their lives are the very opposite of what they profess.

Marriage was not established for christians only. It is like life, everyone alive has a right to it. Being TRUE christian can only make your marriage better just as it can improve the quality of one's life.

There is a supposed man of God in Nigeria that has divorced twice now. What went wrong?

THANK YOU MY DEAR. Am a christian bt some of us 4get to undastand that we became christians n were baptized b4 we knew ourselves so are d muslims and d rest. Maybe, if we were born in islam, we wud ve be more mad dan d bokos.

Ihedinobi:
I wasn't talking about the "supposed man of God". I was talking about all Christians. You appear to have some sort of vendetta against Christianity.

Huh? I called someone a 'supposed man of God', therefore I 'have some sort of vendetta against christianity'? Wow. Really do not know how to answer this warped logic. Well if you must know, I am a christian, and what I see in churches today is a far cry from what Jesus Christ stood for.

I don't care about the pastor you're talking about. I think it's Chris Okotie you mean, but I care nothing for his example. However, I said already that the failure of Christians at marriage does not take away from the truth of the post. And I explained that. If you'd bothered to read my posts at all you would have understood.

And, no, there's no cunning in me.

No cunning indeed! Yet twice you misinterpreted my words on purpose. First changing 'a man of God' to 'all christian leaders', then accusing me of being anti-christian. No wahala sha.

Well, if the question is about Christian believers, it's only right that we should agree on who a Christian believer is, not so? It's not derailing, my friend, it's being thorough. If we'll discuss, we should at least establish a common ground.

I see the question as an attempt at a deviation. Jesus followers were first called christians cos they were LIKE CHRIST. If we are to go by that definition, how many professed christians are truly christians? (Ignore this question).

No, my friend, it is neither full of fantasy nor a dodge. You insisted that marriage was for all humans not Christians alone. My question was simply to know why you think Christianity exists. Is Christianity just a patch in the tapestry or is it the Grand Design itself?

There was no christianity when God created man and instituted marriage. Christianity is not the grand design itself, but a road to it with Christ as leader.

If Christianity is God's goal for the world, then ideally every human should be a Christian. In fact, the Bible says that God commands every man everywhere to repent and be saved. If we all obeyed, we'd all be Christians, no?

The bible shows that not everyone would repent. You should study the bible more often.

And if we all became Christians, what would happen to marriage then? Would there still be different conceptions of it that God would have to tolerate?

Founded on fantasy again. Even people supposedly with the same concept of marriage lead different marriages, and yes, many christian marriages are not happy (for different reasons). Like I mentioned earlier, bible principles can only make marriage better, but if applied.

That first sentence was right on the money. As for the rest, I didn't ask for reality, I asked for an idealistic answer. Surely you appreciate the difference.

Marriage is a reality and so is christianity. I'd certainly not attempt to cover up reality with fantasy disguised as idealism.

I did not ask the question you answered here.

common sense demands that if something is a proven impossibility, there is no use expecting it to happen. It's why I used the sun analogy. Really expected you to get the point.

My brother, (you are a Christian, no?) Jesus Himself could be considered a bigot if we were to apply your standards to Him.

another cunning attempt at twisting words. I wrote 'churchgoers' not 'christians', its not the same thing. Jesus never restricted marriage to his followers, infact the wedding feast he attended at Cana was not between christians. He freely associated with the despised and downtrodden of his day, even the ones considered by many as sinners. That is a real role model... and yes, yes I am Christian. But doesn't prevent me from facing reality and dismissing fanaticism.

Oahray: Huh? I called someone a 'supposed man of God', therefore I 'have some sort of vendetta against christianity'? Wow. Really do not know how to answer this warped logic. Well if you must know, I am a christian, and what I see in churches today is a far cry from what Jesus Christ stood for.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here, even though I think I've explained it enough times. I still don't care about any "supposed men of God". I don't hold brief for them

I said you have a vendetta against Christianity, again NOT because of any men of God, supposed or otherwise, but because you have been on the warpath since you got on this thread. You have denounced me and the op as bigots and self-righteous Christians without even bothering to read my posts. Now that we are conversing person-to-person, you do a very bad job of comprehending my posts at all.

No cunning indeed! Yet twice you misinterpreted my words on purpose. First changing 'a man of God' to 'all christian leaders', then accusing me of being anti-christian. No wahala sha.

This is not a very good way to read a person's posts. You want me to starr defending myself? If you feel better thinking of me as cunning, knock yourself out. However, I did say "heads" not "leaders". There's that subtle difference, you see. And I said "vendetta against Christianity" and said something to the effect that you appeared to have one not that you were being anti-christian. But, why mind me? I only post so that people can misconstrue my words.

I see the question as an attempt at a deviation. Jesus followers were first called christians cos they were LIKE CHRIST. If we are to go by that definition, how many professed christians are truly christians? (Ignore this question).

Is that your definition? Christians are people who are like Christ?

As for what my question is, I have explained. If you don't accept my explanation, tell me why. Perhaps you're dodging answering what Christianity is. Perhaps you really don't know what it is and you're afraid of letting your ignorance show? Perhaps I don't merit an answer? I have told you why I asked. Ball's in your court.

There was no christianity when God created man and instituted marriage. Christianity is not the grand design itself, but a road to it with Christ as leader.

So Christianity is just one route to God, is it? Er, did you say you are a Christian?

The bible shows that not everyone would repent. You should study the bible more often.

Ok, I'm not sure what this answer is supposed to achieve. I asked you a hypothetical question. Why are you doing your best to avoid it? Ideally, should every human be saved or not? You do know the meaning of the word, ideal, right?

Founded on fantasy again. Even people supposedly with the same concept of marriage lead different marriages, and yes, many christian marriages are not happy (for different reasons). Like I mentioned earlier, bible principles can only make marriage better, but if applied.

If you're answering my questions, I'm a little too dumb to perceive the answers. Perhaps you can explain a little better?

The question is: if we all became Christians, what would happen to marriage? Would there still be any other conceptions of marriage that God would have to tolerate.

It's a hypothetical question. You know what that is?

Marriage is a reality and so is christianity. I'd certainly not attempt to cover up reality with fantasy disguised as idealism.

Man, if you don't have an answer to my question, you could say so. You didn't only come on this thread to pontificate about self-righteous Christians, did you? If you're that much more enlightened than these self-righteous bigots, you could show them the light, no?

common sense demands that if something is a proven impossibility, there is no use expecting it to happen. It's why I used the sun analogy. Really expected you to get the point.

It's a simple enough question. You really did not need to try so hard to misunderstand it.

another cunning attempt at twisting words. I wrote 'churchgoers' not 'christians', its not the same thing. Jesus never restricted marriage to his followers, infact the wedding feast he attended at Cana was not between christians. He freely associated with the despised and downtrodden of his day, even the ones considered by many as sinners. That is a real role model... and yes, yes I am Christian. But doesn't prevent me from facing reality and dismissing fanaticism.

Did I imply that you said "christians"? And why the sermon?

---

Why are you on this thread? Why are you here? What good have you accomplished being here? You came here looking for a fight, didn't you? Took no consideeation to read the posts on the thread before attacking an op you did not understand and now completely refuse to. Why are you here?

I didn't bump this thread in order to contend with the madness of the front page, but it's here and now, I have to deal with egos like yours. Why are you here? You need to save the world from fanatical christians like me? And you can only do it with a flurry of accusations and counter-accusations? I'm sure there are more important concerns realistic people like you could be doing beside dealing with unrepentant bigots like me and the op. You probably should attend to them.

^^ Lol... Playing the victim card? Not surprised at all.
So much written, very little said. True christianity is a road (one of two roads as described by Jesus, the other leads to destruction) leading to an end. That shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

Anyway, you replied my first post and not the other way round. So if there is a trouble seeker, he isn't me. I simply aired my opinion. I'd say it again and again, it is a classic show of ignorant bigotry and self righteousness to insinuate that marriage is for christians only. If you feel that disqualifies me from being a christian, its your opinion and you have a right to it.

I only tried to show you the reality from the scriptures. Since you think being christian has nothing to do with being like Christ, and you are only interested in making idealistic statements for the sole purpose of arguing, suit yourself, and while at it get someone else to argue with you.

Cheers.

Believers that most times needs a bishop to tell them when to fvck and merry. Is that marraige?

More like marriage of two babies if you may ask me. Marriage is between two rational adults,not deluded ones.

redsun: Believers that most times needs a bishop to tell them when to fvck and merry. Is that marraige?

More like marriage of two babies if you may ask me. Marriage is between two rational adults,not deluded ones.

I like sexxx I need a freak between the sheets.

i understand the point of view of the poster, however, i think any one can get married, as long as you know the rules of marriage, which has been mostly adopted into christianity, even though it doesn't mean people are really following them in the christian fold or have exceptional marriages, however, here are 8 ladies you should never marry.

http://www.elijahforce..com/2013/02/8-ladies-to-never-marry.html

From marriage,politics , religion has been dragged into everything..name one section of our lives that religion doesnt play a part, even though it has its good sides but in a civilized society, intelligence and facts should rule..

But on a serious note, "If God is love,Can LOVE really be found outside God?". Can somebody who does not know God shed garbs of selfishness and truly love another?. This is a food for thought.

you do realize marriage was started long before christianity. Religion without education really is dangerous

Marriage is definitely not for believers only. It is for a man and a woman. Though, the marriage of a believer should be rooted in faith. Which then implies that the man and the woman have spiritual rules which must be met before taking the step. To go a bit further, 1 rule that must be affirmed:
Love your neighbour as yourself- which really means love your neighbour before yourself. If you can't follow this simple rule of loving your spouse before yourself (which of course should be mutual), don't bother getting married

Are you into marry and divorce? Then you are sinner. Are you married to more than one person? Repent!! Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is for better and for worse until death separates (Matthew 19:3-6). ‘Wherefore they are no more two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man put asunder (separate)’. Cheating on your wife or husband is sin. Proverbs 28: 13 says, ‘‘He that covers his sins shall not prosper...You must repent of them, confess and forsake them.

Are you into worldliness? Don’t you know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? So, you must stop bleaching your body or painting your mouth, eyes, hands and legs or fixing attachments, weave-on, earrings (Genesis 35:2-4), bangles, chains and frying or perming your hair. Tattooing your body is satanic. Are you one of those that put on nude dresses, short skirts, transparent dresses to seduce men or women (A seducer is a Sinner)

Oahray: ^^ Lol... Playing the victim card? Not surprised at all.
So much written, very little said. True christianity is a road (one of two roads as described by Jesus, the other leads to destruction) leading to an end. That shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

Anyway, you replied my first post and not the other way round. So if there is a trouble seeker, he isn't me. I simply aired my opinion. I'd say it again and again, it is a classic show of ignorant bigotry and self righteousness to insinuate that marriage is for christians only. If you feel that disqualifies me from being a christian, its your opinion and you have a right to it.

I only tried to show you the reality from the scriptures. Since you think being christian has nothing to do with being like Christ, and you are only interested in making idealistic statements for the sole purpose of arguing, suit yourself, and while at it get someone else to argue with you.

Cheers.

You've been baiting me since I started talking with you. And I've nearly fallen for it twice now. I don't think you were doing it on purpose but if I responded to you as your posts demand, I'd probably whip you out of this thread and that's not what I want to do.

Suffice it to say that you have not addressed this op in any worthwhile way and that is quite a pity. I guess I can live with talking with someone else, if there's someone else worthy of my time here. The majority of posts here have been quite shot with senselessness so I think I'll fare worse taking on someone else. I'm willing to defend and make sense of this op to anyone interested in understanding it. But I won't force anyone to listen.

Thanks for dropping by, my friend. Have a good day. Oh, and for the record, I never play victim. If you've seen me on any thread, you'd know that.

birdman: you do realize marriage was started long before christianity. Religion without education really is dangerous

When did Christianity really start, sir?

Ihedinobi: 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 agree with with you. Most importantly,marriage can only work successfully with too people that knows the meaning of FORGIVENESS

oleku baby:


I agree with with you. Most importantly,marriage can only work successfully with too people that knows the meaning of FORGIVENESS

Quite right, my sister.

Ihedinobi: Actually this is completely true.

One question, was Esther's marriage blessed?

Lord_Reed:

One question, was Esther's marriage blessed?

May I return the question to you, sir? I'd rather hear what you think, if you don't mind.

(PS. I imagine you've read all my explanatory posts, or, at least, the complete rest of the post you quoted partially.)

Lie. Marriage is for all consenting individuals of opposite sex. Believers or non-believers.

blesd man: Lie. Marriage is for all consenting individuals of opposite sex. Believers or non-believers.

Thank you .... Poster, fu....ck you a gazillion times!

Ihedinobi:

May I return the question to you, sir? I'd rather hear what you think, if you don't mind.

(PS. I imagine you've read all my explanatory posts, or, at least, the complete rest of the post you quoted partially.)

No you may not at this time. I will give my view after you have answered the question.

PS: I only read your first submission.

Lord_Reed:

No you may not at this time. I will give my view after you have answered the question.

PS: I only read your first submission.

Ok. I was just going to decline, but I guess it's probably not very reasonable to demand that anyone who will discuss with me must first read my first three posts or so. I do not like half-assed arguments, sir. They really annoy me. Before a discussant can really take exception to a view he must know very well what that view is. Your question has put me on guard and that is not good. I will answer you but I must warn you that I will be very displeased if I sense an inability to even consider what defence I present.

It is my opinion that I can and will render with regard to the question. Yes, I believe that Esther's marriage was blessed.

pompori king: Marriage is not compulsory simple.

this right here is why people fail.

OP- Marriage is meant for believers only!
Pompori King- Marriage is not compulsory simple

Ihedinobi:

Ok. I was just going to decline, but I guess it's probably not very reasonable to demand that anyone who will discuss with me must first read my first three posts or so. I do not like half-assed arguments, sir. They really annoy me. Before a discussant can really take exception to a view he must know very well what that view is. Your question has put me on guard and that is not good. I will answer you but I must warn you that I will be very displeased if I sense an inability to even consider what defence I present.

It is my opinion that I can and will render with regard to the question. Yes, I believe that Esther's marriage was blessed.

I prefer friendly discussions and I would appreciate it if you took this as that.

From what you wrote earlier lemme quote:

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 is what prompted my question. Good Jewish virgin girl marries the head of the nation that enslaves her people. This in my opinion totally disproves your position. There can be no question that Esther's marriage was key to saving the Jews from a devastating attack. To me this ties with what Jesus said about sabbath. These laws are not written to make us slaves to law but to school us to true love. Do you recall the prophet who was asked to marry a prostitute? Why was he asked to do that? As an example of love. To say that God will only bless the marriage of a believer to another believer is absurd. You could very well tell me that God will only allow gravity to affect the airplane of believer or that any other of God's natural laws will only affect any one section of the people on this earth.

Marriage is the natural outcome of the separation of the sexes. What other way to unify the reproductive capacity of the human race than to bring them together in a covenant? That covenant was not predicated on obedience or belief in God hence he says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." This is similar to the prophesy that as long as the earth remains seed time and harvest time will not cease. A farmer does not need to believe in God for his planted seed to become a harvest. Marriage has been given to men and does not need a belief in God to be valid just as gravity does not require a belief in God to work.

May I ask if you are of the persuasion that marriage for believers continues after death?

@Lord Reed, I have seen enough antagonism on this thread to need convincing of your friendly motives even though what I know of you persuades me of your membership of the household of the Lord. So, don't be offended if I still view your comments with suspicion.

Now, I went back to the first page to make sure that I was remembering correctly what I posted. I have indeed answered what you have opined here. And I'm not in the least happy to need to rehash what I have said. Have you indeed disproved my position with an appeal to Esther's story considering that in the selfsame post you assured me that you read I said,

. . . 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.

Considering that Ahaseurus was the unbeliever in this case, do you know him to have been displeased with Esther? Scriptures hold that he delivered the Jews from Haman and hanged him for a criminal because of his love for his wife! How does any of this disprove my position? Is it not in fact my position?

I will be much gratified and greatly encouraged if you pay close enough attention to hear what myself and the op are saying.

As for your other submissions, I think it was in another lengthy post on the same first page, a response to Gloriagee that I said that God permits things even witjout approving them. I will not here recount everything. I will provide the link in my next post.

You will have to explain the purpose of that question of yours before I bother with answering it.

@Ihedinobi

I think this sentence

It is only possible as long as the unbeliever is pleased to remain in it.

is just a rigmarole and puts a hole in your position. How does the unbeliever's will now supersede the so called God's intention for marriage?
If God is only pleased with believer's marriages why should Ahaseurus' deeds matter to the equation? He is not in communication with God and is not obeying the dictates of God so how is his will to be in the marriage altering the said God's intention for marriage?

Your reply to Gloriagee does not answer the fact that marriage is a natural law same as gravity, seed time and harvest and all other natural laws God has established and all of which operate with or without a belief in God. You were putting forth a position that says in God's eyes only the marriage of believers is ratified and I say by virtue of the nature of marriage which is a natural law all marriages between man and woman become ratified because they fulfill the conditions laid down from the foundation of the society of men.

Your stipulation that marriage has to be between believers did not exist when that first covenant was made. The only condition given was that a man would cleave to his woman.

Your position would make sense if you believed that after death God would still keep a believing couple together because the ultimate purpose of God will not be revealed in this age hence the question.

BTW I am yet to see you quote a scripture that convincingly tells us that "true" marriage is only between believers.

Lord_Reed: @Ihedinobi

I think this sentence

is just a rigmarole and puts a hole in your position. How does the unbeliever's will now supersede the so called God's intention for marriage?

Now you're doing a very bad job of convincing me of that friendliness you spoke of. I incorporate a statement I consider vital in a case I am making and to which you're responding and you unilaterally and unceremoniously throw it out as unnecessary? Why? Because your attack on my case is helped if it is made irrelevant? What a joke!

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases - 1 Corinthians 7:12-15.

If God is only pleased with believer's marriages why should Ahaseurus' deeds matter to the equation? He is not in communication with God and is not obeying the dictates of God so how is his will to be in the marriage altering the said God's intention for marriage?

You have your response up there. The believer makes the difference.

Your reply to Gloriagee does not answer the fact that marriage is a natural law same as gravity, seed time and harvest and all other natural laws God has established and all of which operate with or without a belief in God. You were putting forth a position that says in God's eyes only the marriage of believers is ratified and I say by virtue of the nature of marriage which is a natural law all marriages between man and woman become ratified because they fulfill the conditions laid down from the foundation of the society of men.

You said that marriage is a natural law. Why are you burdening me with the need to fit what I have said into what you say? How is marriage on a par with gravity?

Your stipulation that marriage has to be between believers did not exist when that first covenant was made. The only condition given was that a man would cleave to his woman.

Is that right? Were Adam and Eve unbelievers?

Your position would make sense if you believed that after death God would still keep a believing couple together because the ultimate purpose of God will not be revealed in this age hence the question.

BTW I am yet to see you quote a scripture that convincingly tells us that "true" marriage is only between believers.

First paragraph. Indeed. How so?

Second paragraph. Have you quoted one giving the lie to my submissions? And Mal 2:15 does not count as Scripture? Or mentioning it only without quoting doesn't count? How funny.

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

so what happens to the unbelievers ?

@Ihedinobi

I think you should calm down and stop having a hostility reflex. I am engaging you in a simple discussion.

I say to you your argument has a hole by reason of your statement and you say I dismiss it? Come now is every thing I say going to offend your sensibilities?

Going by this passage then it is the believer in a believer-unbeliever marriage who provides the "blessing" in the marriage not so? And if this union is blessed is it not validated? So how does this tell me such a union is a lie or that unbeliever-unbeliever marriages are not sanctioned by God?

I said that marriage is a natural law yes. And all natural laws operate with or without faith in God and gravity is one of them. I am not saying gravity and marriage are the same. I am sure you can understand my point better than that. I infer that if natural laws like gravity are applied across the entire spectrum of human beings without any discrimination why should marriage be different? I didn't say you said marriage is a natural law. I was expecting you to counter this point.

When that marriage pronouncement was made was the state of man taken into account? No it was not and there was no need to because it did not matter, man was going to multiply fallen or unfallen. The law of reproduction does not take man's state into account either, it just works.

As for the question I asked previously, could you just answer it? I have already stated why I asked it.

I quoted the original statement of the marriage principle and it certainly shows no stipulation as to belief in God or no. You however still have not showed us a scripture that explicitly shows the intention of God for marriage vis-a-vis your position.