Lord_Reed: @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?

You're not paying attention, my friend. My first post was filled with warnings about how I am. I know that nairalanders tend to be rather obtuse in reasoning, but I hadn't quite bargained on having to deal with a rush of crazies from the front page. This was an obscure thread made months ago. I just bumped it up to explore the thought more fully. I expected scant attention and only hoped to talk with the op himself. So to see so many antagonists who did not care to read my explanations of the op crawling ouy of the woodwork to do nothing but pontificate about bigotry dismayed me, to put it mildly.

You show up and talk about a friendly discussion like your saying your questions aren't hostile makes it so. You have not proved any kind of comradeship so far talking to me, but I can try to lower my guard simply because I generally don't like being hostile.

Now when you said my statement was a rigmarole, what were you thinking? Did you seriously think you were not waving it aside as unnecessary? Like I said, pay attention.

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?

Did you notice the part about letting the unbelieving spouse go if they wished to leave? Why did Paul say that the believer's not bound in that case? Did you check? What did Paul say about divorce between a Christian couple? Did you check? Your answers lie in the answers to those questions.

I said that marriage is a natural law yes

Right. YOU said.

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.

And all this is predicated on YOUR insistence that marriage is a natural law. Well, it's up to you to say how it is.

I never said what you said I said. Pay attention. I said that I was not obliged to fit my case into your sentiment that marriage is a natural law.

I don't have to meet your expectations either. I could very easily ignore your points rather than counter them. So far, I'm not convinced you have been giving my own points the attention they deserve.

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.

Who says that the state of man was not taken into account? You? Who says there was no need for the state of man to be taken into account? You? Do you know the morale of the story of the flood? Do you know why God would command that not even the babies and heavily pregnant women of nations like the children of Ammon were to be spared?

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

I think I'll pass.

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.

Sorry, I must have missed that. I mean, this "original statement of the marriage principle". It's a thankless job typing on a touchscreen Android. I'm not inclined to reproduce whole texts like I did before with little to show for the effort. I have given two bits of Scripture. I will reference them again along with two others. And I challenge you to back up your own stance with explicit, that is, plain or self-explanatory Scripture.

There are:

1 Corinthians 7:14

Malachi 2:15

Genesis 18:19

Genesis 1:28.

Heck, I'll even throw in Genesis 9:1-2.


From the beginning, God ever only sought godly seed. Not only human children, you see, but definitely those.

Now, your turn. Let's see those Scriptures that shut me up.

Lord_Reed: @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?

You're not paying attention, my friend. My first post was filled with warnings about how I am. I know that nairalanders tend to be rather obtuse in reasoning, but I hadn't quite bargained on having to deal with a rush of crazies from the front page. This was an obscure thread made months ago. I just bumped it up to explore the thought more fully. I expected scant attention and only hoped to talk with the op himself. So to see so many antagonists who did not care to read my explanations of the op crawling ouy of the woodwork to do nothing but pontificate about bigotry dismayed me, to put it mildly.

You show up and talk about a friendly discussion like your saying your questions aren't hostile makes it so. You have not proved any kind of comradeship so far talking to me, but I can try to lower my guard simply because I generally don't like being hostile.

Now when you said my statement was a rigmarole, what were you thinking? Did you seriously think you were not waving it aside as unnecessary? Like I said, pay attention.

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?

Did you notice the part about letting the unbelieving spouse go if they wished to leave? Why did Paul say that the believer's not bound in that case? Did you check? What did Paul say about divorce between a Christian couple? Did you check? Your answers lie in the answers to those questions.

I said that marriage is a natural law yes

Right. YOU said.

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.

And all this is predicated on YOUR insistence that marriage is a natural law. Well, it's up to you to say how it is.

I never said what you said I said. Pay attention. I said that I was not obliged to fit my case into your sentiment that marriage is a natural law.

I don't have to meet your expectations either. I could very easily ignore your points rather than counter them. So far, I'm not convinced you have been giving my own points the attention they deserve.

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.

Who says that the state of man was not taken into account? You? Who says there was no need for the state of man to be taken into account? You? Do you know the morale of the story of the flood? Do you know why God would command that not even the babies and heavily pregnant women of nations like the children of Ammon were to be spared?

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

I think I'll pass.

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.

Sorry, I must have missed that. I mean, this "original statement of the marriage principle". It's a thankless job typing on a touchscreen Android. I'm not inclined to reproduce whole texts like I did before with little to show for the effort. I have given two bits of Scripture. I will reference them again along with two others. And I challenge you to back up your own stance with explicit, that is, plain or self-explanatory Scripture.

There are:

1 Corinthians 7:14

Malachi 2:15

Genesis 18:19

Genesis 1:28.

Heck, I'll even throw in Genesis 9:1-2.


From the beginning, God ever only sought godly seed. Not only human children, you see, but definitely those.

Now, your turn. Let's see those Scriptures that shut me up.

Ihedinobi:

When did Christianity really start, sir?

Paul talked about the church being a bride, so obviously marriage was well established by the time christianity came on the scene. Its only a matter of time before one of these pastors "proves" that children are meant for believers only.

This post should be one of d dumbest I've read here. BELIEVER? I wonder wht d OP actually meant by dat. Accordin 2 d xtian tales, was Adam a believer or Cain or Seth?

This argument is useless. Smh.

birdman:

Paul talked about the church being a bride, so obviously marriage was well established by the time christianity came on the scene. Its only a matter of time before one of these pastors "proves" that children are meant for believers only.

I'm sorry I didn't see your answer to the question.

Ihedinobi:



Did you notice the part about letting the unbelieving spouse go if they wished to leave? Why did Paul say that the believer's not bound in that case? Did you check? What did Paul say about divorce between a Christian couple? Did you check? Your answers lie in the answers to those questions.

Those were instructions specifically to the church. The problem of conflict because of "religious" differences necessitated that set of instructions. Notice that Paul says it is not that he spoke a commandment of God rather he spoke wisdom. If an unbelieving spouse wants to depart for reason of the christian faith espoused by the other then he/she is allowed to go. Paul was well aware of the conditions the church was growing under and as much as possible he counseled
churches not to go against the existing societal order hence the follow up instructions to the Corinthians to maintain the wearing of veils for women and his several admonitions to obey authority.

Those instructions in no way invalidated marriages of non-believers. Paul had no such authority. Jesus in all his teachings never once made allusion to any of that either. He discussed the issue of marriage when questions were asked and he did not even say that the situation that was brought to him was invalid. So how do we arrive at a point where we say marriage is only for believers when The Master himself gave no such instruction?

Right. YOU said.



And all this is predicated on YOUR insistence that marriage is a natural law. Well, it's up to you to say how it is.

I never said what you said I said. Pay attention. I said that I was not obliged to fit my case into your sentiment that marriage is a natural law.

I don't have to meet your expectations either. I could very easily ignore your points rather than counter them. So far, I'm not convinced you have been giving my own points the attention they deserve.

Initially I asked a question and I said I will give my view after you answered which I did, to which you point me to your answer to Gloriagee which IMHO does not answer the point I raised. I raised the point because it lies at the first principle of marriage. For you to so lightly skip answering it indicates you have no answer to it.

Who says that the state of man was not taken into account? You? Who says there was no need for the state of man to be taken into account? You? Do you know the morale of the story of the flood? Do you know why God would command that not even the babies and heavily pregnant women of nations like the children of Ammon were to be spared?

The bible cannot contradict what is known and we all know that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply was given as a natural law to all men regardless of what their state is. Even Jesus said God's rain falls on both the wicked and the righteous, this is natural law and will in this world continue to affect all men regardless of their state of belief. If God wanted to exclusively breed the righteous why is the reproductive natural law working for all?

The flood happened because man had been corrupted by strange flesh. Angelic beings had breed with men to produce the race of giants. Noah's was progeny were the only untouched pure breed human stock left. This is the cause of the destruction. The same thing happened to all the races of Canaan, they had corrupted themselves again. All this was in a bid to corrupt the line of the Saviour, which was why God forbade them from marrying the Canaanites.

I think I'll pass.

Dodging simple questions?

Sorry, I must have missed that. I mean, this "original statement of the marriage principle". It's a thankless job typing on a touchscreen Android. I'm not inclined to reproduce whole texts like I did before with little to show for the effort. I have given two bits of Scripture. I will reference them again along with two others. And I challenge you to back up your own stance with explicit, that is, plain or self-explanatory Scripture.

There are:

1 Corinthians 7:14

Malachi 2:15

Genesis 18:19

Genesis 1:28.

Heck, I'll even throw in Genesis 9:1-2.


From the beginning, God ever only sought godly seed. Not only human children, you see, but definitely those.

Now, your turn. Let's see those Scriptures that shut me up.

I am using a Blackberry to reply so you will permit me to come back with all the scriptures I want to quote.

As for God wanting godly seed that can never be denied. However His method of achieving this purpose never included denying the validity of the marriage of unbelievers. Abraham was called as a heathen, he had married his half sister Sarah yet he starts the line of the Saviour. No where did God say his marriage was illegal. Rahab the prostitute becomes one the progenitors of the Saviour. Ruth a Moabitess also becomes one of the progenitors. Not to mention Judah's incestuous act which also produces a progenitor.

What am I driving at? Marriage valid is not the criteria for determining godly seed. Esau was vile before God were his father and mother not believers or was their marriage not sanctioned?

Jesus did not come to call to repentance only the "godly" seed. All are called and it is those who believe that are made righteous not the offspring of believers alone.

As I said permit me I will follow up with scriptures when I get to a computer.

@Ihedinobi

BTW none of the scripture you quote says that only the godly or the righteous or believers are permitted to marry or that such marriages are the only ones ratified by God.

Lord_Reed:

Those were instructions specifically to the church.

And this renders my appeal to them unwarranted how?

The problem of conflict because of "religious" differences necessitated that set of instructions.

Feel free to explain.

Notice that Paul says it is not that he spoke a commandment of God rather he spoke wisdom.

And this somehow means we are free to treat his words a little differently than the rest of Scripture?

If an unbelieving spouse wants to depart for reason of the christian faith espoused by the other then he/she is allowed to go.

Where was this reason alluded to?

Paul was well aware of the conditions the church was growing under and as much as possible he counseled
churches not to go against the existing societal order hence the follow up instructions to the Corinthians to maintain the wearing of veils for women and his several admonitions to obey authority.

Substantiate this please.

Those instructions in no way invalidated marriages of non-believers.

I'm yet to see how they did not. However, I am very wary of the word "invalidate". I want to avoid splitting hairs, but I have held that God "respects" the marriage alliances of unbelievers just as much as He respects every human's right to choose to obey or defy Him. If unbelievers choose to get married, they are free to, but God will require of them His very purpose for marriage. If they cannot meet His demand, their marriage means nothing to Him. You are free to understand that or not.

Paul had no such authority. Jesus in all his teachings never once made allusion to any of that either. He discussed the issue of marriage when questions were asked and he did not even say that the situation that was brought to him was invalid. So how do we arrive at a point where we say marriage is only for believers when The Master himself gave no such instruction?

This is quite disappointing. I'm admonishing myself to not believe that you are deliberately setting aside Scripture. The Master, as you call Him, said, 'every seed that is not planted by my father shall be rooted up.' Do you think that includes marriages not planted by the Lord?

Initially I asked a question and I said I will give my view after you answered which I did, to which you point me to your answer to Gloriagee which IMHO does not answer the point I raised.

I was wary of that question from the start. It was because of a perception I had of you and an opinion I held of you that I ventured to answer. There are many parading themselves on nairaland like they know something and are something. They're like the dogs of wild looking for some blood. I try to avoid engaging them because it is easy to become infected with their malady by associating with them in any way. I always hoped you were not like them. But to show up on a thread, do a cursory reading of one post and immediately craft a question for the poster smacks of such a dog.

That question could really give a hoot about what I thought. From the beginning, its purpose was not to examine my position's worth, it was to tear it down, to kill it and make a mockery of it. I suspected this but gave you benefit of the doubt because of the opinion I held of you as a result of the limited associations I had with you from the religion section.

Now, however, I'm sure I will take no more questions.

I raised the point because it lies at the first principle of marriage. For you to so lightly skip answering it indicates you have no answer to it.

What is this first principle of marriage you're so enamoured with? And where did you find it?

The bible cannot contradict what is known and we all know that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply was given as a natural law to all men regardless of what their state is.

No, we don't all know this. I do not know it. This command that you call a natural law is very unique in many ways. I have seen no other natural law that was thus promulgated. Nor have I ever seen Scriptures make reproduction the responsibility of man to God in the sense that barren people were sinners or deliberate eunuchs like Jesus were breakers of God's law.

Even Jesus said God's rain falls on both the wicked and the righteous, this is natural law and will in this world continue to affect all men regardless of their state of belief. If God wanted to exclusively breed the righteous why is the reproductive natural law working for all?

If God wanted a world free of sin, why did He create sinners too?

The flood happened because man had been corrupted by strange flesh. Angelic beings had breed with men to produce the race of giants.

My word! What a tall story. Where did you get that?

Noah's was progeny were the only untouched pure breed human stock left. This is the cause of the destruction. The same thing happened to all the races of Canaan, they had corrupted themselves again. All this was in a bid to corrupt the line of the Saviour, which was why God forbade them from marrying the Canaanites.

But of course. It had absolutely nothing to do with the wickedness that filled the world like floods of water in the deep.

I am using a Blackberry to reply so you will permit me to come back with all the scriptures I want to quote.

The difdiculty of typing on an Android didn't stop me, but, hey, whatever makes you happy.

As for God wanting godly seed that can never be denied. However His method of achieving this purpose never included denying the validity of the marriage of unbelievers.

Wonderful reasoning! No, really. God institutes a special human relationship for a special purpose, but, hey, it doesn't mean He disapproves of any caricature of it. Everyone is entirely free to do what they will with it, cos' it's all good.

Abraham was called as a heathen, he had married his half sister Sarah yet he starts the line of the Saviour. No where did God say his marriage was illegal. Rahab the prostitute becomes one the progenitors of the Saviour. Ruth a Moabitess also becomes one of the progenitors. Not to mention Judah's incestuous act which also produces a progenitor.

And all these people remained in their initial ungodly state to serve God's purpose, did they?

What am I driving at? Marriage valid is not the criteria for determining godly seed. Esau was vile before God were his father and mother not believers or was their marriage not sanctioned?

Oh? But the Bible says it is. Ah well, what does the Bible even know, right?

Jesus did not come to call to repentance only the "godly" seed. All are called and it is those who believe that are made righteous not the offspring of believers alone.

And you're addressing my argument with this how exactly?

As I said permit me I will follow up with scriptures when I get to a computer.

Sure. Just note that the moment I see any instance of setting the Scriptures against themselves, or a battle of quotations, one of two things will happen: 1. I will become extremely hostile or 2. this discussion will end.

Lord_Reed: @Ihedinobi

BTW none of the scripture you quote says that only the godly or the righteous or believers are permitted to marry or that such marriages are the only ones ratified by God.

Have I said anywhere that only believers are permitted to marry?

It is untrue that NONE of the Scriptures I offered says that only marriages between believers are ratified by God. Indeed they all did say so. If a purpose is connected with a thing, then everything that counters that purpose especially if it does so by pretending to be that thing attracts the antagonism of the creator or originator of that thing.

Those Scriptures show what God's intent for instituting marriage was. As long as that intent, that purpose exists, God will be partial to the marriages that are true to it. Thus, it is wholly evident that God ratifies only the marriages that have the ability to give Him what He requires of them.

Ihedinobi:

And this renders my appeal to them unwarranted how?

We both know that instructions to the church can not have a hold on those without. For instance pray without ceasing is a meaningless instruction for an unbeliever
for he has no faith in the first place. Similarly instruction on christian marriage conduct is meaningless to an outsider for it can not be effective in his/her life except of course he/she is a the unbelieving spouse in question. This set of instruction can not hold water in an unbeliever-unbeliever marriage and thus can not invalidate or make their marriage unsanctioned in God's eyes.

Feel free to explain.

The question arose because of this type of contentions. What should a believer do about his marriage now that he believers and the spouse does not. Remember that this was at a time when christianity was just taking root and persecution of christians was on the
rise. Societal conditions were not very favourable to the faith and married believers would have the added dimension of dealing with a hostile spouse. Paul had to give the church guidance.

And this somehow means we are free to treat his words a little differently than the rest of Scripture?

Only in fact that Paul expressly states that his words are not a command from God or did you miss that?

Where was this reason alluded to?

Look at verse 15 of that scripture. God has called us to peace is what ends it. The entire essence of the admonition was to quell any potential conflicts in marriages arising from religious difference.

Substantiate this please.

I will further substantiate when I can quote scripture.

I'm yet to see how they did not. However, I am very wary of the word "invalidate". I want to avoid splitting hairs, but I have held that God "respects" the marriage alliances of unbelievers just as much as He respects every human's right to choose to obey or defy Him. If unbelievers choose to get married, they are free to, but God will require of them His very purpose for marriage. If they cannot meet His demand, their marriage means nothing to Him. You are free to understand that or not.

This is a whole different ball game from saying only believers have marriages validated by God. Their marriages are valid but their lives are remain blots before Him. If this sums your argument then I believe I am satisfied. However the syntax marriage is meant for believers only is wrong.

This is quite disappointing. I'm admonishing myself to not believe that you are deliberately setting aside Scripture. The Master, as you call Him, said, 'every seed that is not planted by my father shall be rooted up.' Do you think that includes marriages not planted by the Lord?

O my o my! This just sounds like a excuse for some despicable behaviour. Just like some one pointed out this just might be the excuse folk like Pastor Chris and other men of God have cooked up to act in ways that bring disgrace to the body.

It is at the judgment seat that we will know the full extent and result of our actions. To use this passage as a way to invalidate marriage is folly.

I was wary of that question from the start. It was because of a perception I had of you and an opinion I held of you that I ventured to answer. There are many parading themselves on nairaland like they know something and are something. They're like the dogs of wild looking for some blood. I try to avoid engaging them because it is easy to become infected with their malady by associating with them in any way. I always hoped you were not like them. But to show up on a thread, do a cursory reading of one post and immediately craft a question for the poster smacks of such a dog.

So to question your position smacks of dog? Really?

That question could really give a hoot about what I thought. From the beginning, its purpose was not to examine my position's worth, it was to tear it down, to kill it and make a mockery of it. I suspected this but gave you benefit of the doubt because of the opinion I held of you as a result of the limited associations I had with you from the religion section.

That question directly prodded an assertion you made. I don't see how genuinely questioning a position you have taken is mockery? Have you become infallible?

Now, however, I'm sure I will take no more questions.

Your prerogative. Just as it is mine to question anything I find unclear, untrue or doubtful.

What is this first principle of marriage you're so enamoured with? And where did you find it?

Where in scripture was the first marriage covenanted? Where in scripture is the earliest basic statement of the marriage covenant made?

No, we don't all know this. I do not know it. This command that you call a natural law is very unique in many ways. I have seen no other natural law that was thus promulgated. Nor have I ever seen Scriptures make reproduction the responsibility of man to God in the sense that barren people were sinners or deliberate eunuchs like Jesus were breakers of God's law.

How is it unique? Is it different from the be fruitful and multiply? In what way is it different? Natural laws can not be "broken" they will remain in place as long as the earth remains.

If God wanted a world free of sin, why did He create sinners too?

God made sinners? Are sure you know what you are saying? Men become sinners God does not make them so, so please do not use obtuse arguments, it does not become you.

My word! What a tall story. Where did you get that?


But of course. It had absolutely nothing to do with the wickedness that filled the world like floods of water in the deep.

More wicked than the world that has existed since after the flood? I don't think so. I will admit however that that little narrative is a highly subjective explanation of the cause of the flood and God's wrath against the Canaanites but one that I find fits the facts much more perfectly than others.

Wonderful reasoning! No, really. God institutes a special human relationship for a special purpose, but, hey, it doesn't mean He disapproves of any caricature of it. Everyone is entirely free to do what they will with it, cos' it's all good.



And all these people remained in their initial ungodly state to serve God's purpose, did they?



Oh? But the Bible says it is. Ah well, what does the Bible even know, right?



And you're addressing my argument with this how exactly?

Going by your argument the progeny of godless marriages are a mockery of God's purpose, so what does God do about it? He sends His Son to die for them. Sounds like a God who doesn't care indeed.

Ihedinobi:

Have I said anywhere that only believers are permitted to marry?

It is untrue that NONE of the Scriptures I offered says that only marriages between believers are ratified by God. Indeed they all did say so. If a purpose is connected with a thing, then everything that counters that purpose especially if it does so by pretending to be that thing attracts the antagonism of the creator or originator of that thing.

Those Scriptures show what God's intent for instituting marriage was. As long as that intent, that purpose exists, God will be partial to the marriages that are true to it. Thus, it is wholly evident that God ratifies only the marriages that have the ability to give Him what He requires of them.

What God wants is that the World be saved it is not through marriage that His purpose will be achieved. It is through faith in Jesus, any other gospel is rejected.

Welldone Reed, welldone. Salvation is through Jesus only. Was a pleasure reading your posts.


*unfollowing thread*

Lord_Reed:

We both know that instructions to the church can not have a hold on those without. For instance pray without ceasing is a meaningless instruction for an unbeliever
for he has no faith in the first place. Similarly instruction on christian marriage conduct is meaningless to an outsider for it can not be effective in his/her life except of course he/she is a the unbelieving spouse in question. This set of instruction can not hold water in an unbeliever-unbeliever marriage and thus can not invalidate or make their marriage unsanctioned in God's eyes.

Is that so? And the reason the Church is on earth is what again?

The question arose because of this type of contentions. What should a believer do about his marriage now that he believers and the spouse does not. Remember that this was at a time when christianity was just taking root and persecution of christians was on the
rise. Societal conditions were not very favourable to the faith and married believers would have the added dimension of dealing with a hostile spouse. Paul had to give the church guidance.

And none of this is speculation? In any case, believers back in those days did indeed ask for guidance with respect to marriage. What I'm missing is that they did so because of any religious differences. The whole of chapter seven began with an answer as to whether or not it was ok to be celibate. The rest very probably followed as a matter of course. I see no reason at all to suppose that they were concerned about any religious differences.

Whatever you wish to say about that portion of Paul's letter, one thing holds firm and that is that Paul's concern about a light-darkness alliance which, by the way, he also condemned was the children. And that is significant because it suggests that the purpose of marriage is vitally linked to the product of the union.

Now, I have pointed out emphatically that the product in view is not limited to children but I know that the frenzy of argument has not quite permitted you to see that. The Scriptures say, 'can two walk together except they be agreed?' Obviously they can't. But if they did agree, Scriptures say, 'two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow...' and 'one shall chase a thousand and two shall chase ten thousand'. Two believers in a marriage alliance have all the apparatus that is needed to satisfy God's demand: "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and have dominion over all of it." Whether they use this apparatus to accomplish His demand or not is another matter. The issue is that they have it and that makes everything God expects of marriage possible to them. This is the whole point of Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 7.

Only in fact that Paul expressly states that his words are not a command from God or did you miss that?

So? Are they to be treated as part of Scripture or not? Again, did Paul mean that he was instrycting contrary to the Lord or independent of Him?

Look at verse 15 of that scripture. God has called us to peace is what ends it. The entire essence of the admonition was to quell any potential conflicts in marriages arising from religious difference.

That is what you say. I don't see that anywhere there. Paul went on to say that the believing spouse could not be sure whether or not their unbelieving spouse would be saved as a result of their marriage. I see in that an admonition to the believing spouse to hold their marriage with a readiness to let it go if their unbelieving spouse is no longer pleased to carry on with them.

In circumstances like that, I personally know that there is a far greater tendency for the believer to struggle to save their marriage tham there is to let it go. Paul's words will continue to remind Christians in every generation who are caught in that sort of trouble that the Lord has not called us to that kind of struggle, but to peace, the peace of letting go and resting in the Lord.

I will further substantiate when I can quote scripture.

Like I said, whatever you like.

This is a whole different ball game from saying only believers have marriages validated by God. Their marriages are valid but their lives are remain blots before Him. If this sums your argument then I believe I am satisfied. However the syntax marriage is meant for believers only is wrong.

Excuse me! Are you by any chance implying that this is not part of the case I have been making? Did you lie when you said, "I only read your submission"? My annoyance with you is well justified then.

Regardless, however you want to treat the term "valid" is entirely your problem. Like I said, I have no desire to split hairs with you. In the post you responded to, I made perfectly clear, yet again, what my position is.

As for syntax, you can knock yourself out playing english professor. I really couldn't care less.

O my o my! This just sounds like a excuse for some despicable behaviour. Just like some one pointed out this just might be the excuse folk like Pastor Chris and other men of God have cooked up to act in ways that bring disgrace to the body.

It is at the judgment seat that we will know the full extent and result of our actions. To use this passage as a way to invalidate marriage is folly.

If I tell you that I understood the above, I lie.

So to question your position smacks of dog? Really?

To question my position? Is this indeed what I said? To question my position?

That question directly prodded an assertion you made. I don't see how genuinely questioning a position you have taken is mockery? Have you become infallible?

I made an assertion?

"Genuine"? Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of genuine. I do not believe thay your exertion here has been any kind of genuine questioning.

Check my post history out, if you want. I hold no pretensions of any sort to infallibility. You will also find that my tolerance for disingenuity is very low. That's why I left warnings all over my first exchange with you.

Your prerogative. Just as it is mine to question anything I find unclear, untrue or doubtful.

Exactly. I'm in perfect agreement with you here.

Where in scripture was the first marriage covenanted? Where in scripture is the earliest basic statement of the marriage covenant made?

So that's where. And it is based on that part of the Scripture that you raised the question that became a point (that transformation is noteworthy since I suspected it was an argument you wanted to make not an examination of my case for which reason I asked you to answer your own question and make your point. And bent on conflict as you were, you declined in the hopes that answering your question would trip me up. Nice). In answer to this, I believe I asked you if Adam and Eve were unbelievers. Or was it not you? I don't remember any clear answer.

How is it unique? Is it different from the be fruitful and multiply? In what way is it different? Natural laws can not be "broken" they will remain in place as long as the earth remains.

Well, for one thing, this natural law of yours was given to men. Men are intelligent beings. Marriage involves choice, it is not an inadvertent act. So, this law is very breakable. Perhaps for that very reason, your argument is flawed.

God made sinners? Are sure you know what you are saying? Men become sinners God does not make them so, so please do not use obtuse arguments, it does not become you.

First of all, my experience with you so far tells me you have no clue about what becomes me, so stop presuming.

Second, there you have your answer. That God allows everyone to get married and have kids does not mean that He doesn't want a situation where each successive generation is filled with holy children. It only means that He is a loving God Who allows us the power to choose our own way. He has only one definition of marriage but being Love He allows us to make up our own if we want. Doean't mean He'll bless it either.

More wicked than the world that has existed since after the flood? I don't think so. I will admit however that that little narrative is a highly subjective explanation of the cause of the flood and God's wrath against the Canaanites but one that I find fits the facts much more perfectly than others.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I hace made from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord...Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God...

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. Genesis 6:5-9, 11-12.

Pick your bone with the Bible, not me. I didn't say it.

Going by your argument the progeny of godless marriages are a mockery of God's purpose, so what does God do about it? He sends His Son to die for them. Sounds like a God who doesn't care indeed.

You are the one insisting on the product or seed being human children, not me. So, dirext your retort to yourself. By my argument, the product is broader than just kids even though it definitely includes them. Even if we were to argue about progeny, I don't think you'll really disagree that two Christians in a marriage are more likely to produce Christian children than any other type of marriage. That's saying nothing of two Christians utterly devoted to the Lord and having their marriage utterly under His rule, those marriages are an indomitable force and anyone who has encountered one knows it is true.

Lord_Reed:

What God wants is that the World be saved it is not through marriage that His purpose will be achieved. It is through faith in Jesus, any other gospel is rejected.

What have I said that suggests the contrary? Are you attacking a strawman here? Are you saying this to draw attention away from the fact that your statement that none of the Scriptures I quoted held up my position was false? That would be quite disingenous of you, my friend. The honorable thing would be to own up to your mistake or debunk my defence.

Ihedinobi:

I'm sorry I didn't see your answer to the question.

You really arent that slow, are you? Unless you are suggesting christianity began before christ, which I implicitly stated. And just in case you want to extend Christianity before the time of Jesus, it still wouldnt help your case. The Israelites did not introduce marriage either. So you cant come out of the woodwork several centuries later and claim a practice you didnt start is suddenly only for you. It does make you wonder about the reasoning process of many christians

birdman:

You really arent that slow, are you? Unless you are suggesting christianity began before christ, which I implicitly stated. And just in case you want to extend Christianity before the time of Jesus, it still wouldnt help your case. The Israelites did not introduce marriage either. So you cant come out of the woodwork several centuries later and claim a practice you didnt start is suddenly only for you. It does make you wonder about the reasoning process of many christians

I don't know how slow you mean. I'm as slow as me.

Anyway, Christianity predates Creation itself. The Lamb of God was slain from the very foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8 ). The Messiah was in view even before Adam sinned, even before Adam's eyes first opened to the light.

Ihedinobi:

I don't know how slow you mean. I'm as slow as me.

Anyway, Christianity predates Creation itself. The Lamb of God was slain from the very foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8 ). The Messiah was in view even before Adam sinned, even before Adam's eyes first opened to the light.

My bad if my reply was insulting. But seriously though, you have traded practical every day living for spiritual sounding stuff that has no bearing on anything. What you just posted still has nothing to do with a man and a woman getting together for the purpose of raising a family, and acting as one legal unit to the rest of the world. I often wonder how much poverty has to do with our need to over spiritualize everything

birdman:

My bad if my reply was insulting. But seriously though, you have traded practical every day living for spiritual sounding stuff that has no bearing on anything. What you just posted still has nothing to do with a man and a woman getting together for the purpose of raising a family, and acting as one legal unit to the rest of the world. I often wonder how much poverty has to do with our need to over spiritualize everything

We're good. Don't worry about it.

You may be right but we could explore the practical implications of such an assertion as the op's if you want. It's just that when the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, it's the mother who ends up with tears in her eyes.

First off, it is true that marriage was designed for believers, or Christians if you prefer. What this means practically is that Christians have a responsibility to show the world what true marriage is. That's one.

Two. It means that believers hace what it takes to accomplish God's desire or purpose for marriage, namely, to bless the world with all of God's goodness and govern it well for him.

Three. It calls upon Christians to learn to pick their spouses more wisely and affords them the right mindset for marriage. Don't marriages fail because the married are really clueless as to why they are married at all?

First off, it is true that marriage was designed for believers, or Christians if you prefer. What this means practically is that Christians have a responsibility to show the world what true marriage is. That's one.

No it wasnt, anymore than raising kids was designed for believers. Its obvious you have come to this conclusion based on your belief, not evidence. Thats cool, and I'd rather not argue you out of a belief, no matter how wrong it is.

birdman:

No it wasnt, anymore than raising kids was designed for believers. Its obvious you have come to this conclusion based on your belief, not evidence. Thats cool, and I'd rather not argue you out of a belief, no matter how wrong it is.

Saying that I came to my conclusion based on my belief does not make it so. Talkimg about evidence does not make you more intelligent than you really are. The problem in argument sometimes is agreeing what can be considered evidence and what can't.

Suffice it to say that you are free to accept or reject my submissions on this thread for any reason you please. But you cannot fault it or claim that it is wrong without answering why you say so.

okpara ugo:

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

When God said in Genesis 2:18''The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him." Please who was HE (God) talking about ? HIS son or that of the devil ?

God help us

The issue of marriage and believers can only make sense to people who believe the biblical story of creation.

God help us

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.

So what about marriages before christianity. I wanted to laugh at this post until I realized you were serious.

birdman:

So what about marriages before christianity. I wanted to laugh at this post until I realized you were serious.

No marriage ever took place before the one between Adam and Eve ! Are you in support of this before we go ahead ?

God help us

birdman:

So what about marriages before christianity. I wanted to laugh at this post until I realized you were serious.

When is "before Christianity"?

Ihedinobi:

When is "before Christianity"?

Before the resurrection of Christ

^^ Is that right? Wasn't the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?

Ihedinobi: ^^ Is that right? Wasn't the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world means Christ's redemptive death for mankind was part of God's plan from eternity past.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, John the Baptist and every one in the old before the resurrection were not Christians bro.

m.k.o2005:

No marriage ever took place before the one between Adam and Eve ! Are you in support of this before we go ahead ?

God help us

Ihedinobi: ^^ Is that right? Wasn't the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?

So you are saying christianity was before the foundation of the world? Ok now. Was Boaz a Christian? How about Noah? Were any of the husband/wife couples in the old testament christians? Ihedinobi, before you answer, consider you also said this:

When two believers agree to share their lives and seek the blessing of the Lord and His Church in this regard, true marriage happens.

You have tied church to true marriage. Feel free to tie up your theology in knots for us as you explain how the "firstborn from the dead" had church members before his death

@shdemidemi

Once people start interpreting otherwise rather obvious Scriptures, you know an endless argument is brewing.

@birdman

It's simple, my friend. The Way to God has never been other than Christ.

Ihedinobi: @shdemidemi

Once people start interpreting otherwise rather obvious Scriptures, you know an endless argument is brewing.

I believe you are wrong with your assertions that Christianity started before Christ which makes most of your argument on the thread futile.

I would reposition my post if you can enlighten me on how Christianity started before the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Was Abraham saved through the gospel of Christ?

Was Moses saved by this gospel?