welp, i had the operation. my butt’s a little sore, but i’m feeling all right. taking pain pills. should be better in a week. um, that’s it!
Archive for April, 2005
freaking hilarious…that’s what this is…..here’s the link to do your own pictures…either age yourself or see what you’d look like as a member of the opposite sex.
RACHEL AS A MAN:
I have already said that there are, and always will be large problems with the method, ideology, and effectiveness of government. Despite this, God still uses it and works through it to bring about His ends. The fact that there are problems in basically all governmental systems doesn’t negate their authority in our lives or the truth that God allowed that government to be there. Furthermore, it never means that what a governmnet says should overrule God.
I don’t understand your question about government’s authority in vague things, but I may have already responded to it.
you DID make the argument that marriage by the government is the same as marriage by God…however I still disagree with that which invalidates the arguments about any marriage being sacred whether it be governmental or Godly (in my mind they are invalidated that is).
If your argument is nothing more than the fact that government is created by God then what does your argument say about things that the government does that are against God’s will? And why does government have God’s backing in things that are vague when it doesn’t have authority in things that disagree with God’s will (which I’m assuming is your answer)?
I know this isn’t the best laid out argument…but I should be doing work right now…
To speak to the permanence of marriage:
Genesis 2:24
Matthew 19:3-9
Genesis says, “leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife.” The verse says joined (as in permanent) not aligned (as in temporary).
Matthew says, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Related to this, in my last post, I made the point that a governmentally recognized marriage is the same as a marriage before God, thus, any marriage you can make is before God.
Now, with regard to 1 Timothy: Nowhere does it say in the Bible that this is an overarching rule for people. The specific context of what it says is referring to public teaching of men and in the church. Paul doesn’t want women to openly be rebellious of the authority of men, nor overtake the rightful (as God established it) authority of men within the church.
Charles Ryrie says, “Women are not to assume the office of teacher in the church (see 1 Cor 14:34). Women may teach as long as they do not usurp the place of leadership and authority of men in the church. Older women are specifically entrusted with teaching younger women (Titus 2:3-5). The injunction is based on the relationship of man and woman in the original creation (Gen 2:18, 3:6).” (From Ryrie’s Study Bible)
that’s what he looks like right now…
that’s the stance he’ll take when i get the new clubman handlebars.
(for mark) here’s some whitewall tires…which i’m thinking of getting…looks pretty sweet…
with all that stuff said….not every person knows that you might use the word “marriage” with three different meanings….if you honor marriage across the board it just simplifies things. If it represents Christ’s relationship with his people, then I don’t think you’d want any confusion about how important it is.
It seems entirely selfish to whore out marriage for a free cruise…even the “governmental marriage”.
Drew…I agree with everything you said…mostly.
except for the whole “breaking the commitment”. The origional terms of the question were that the marriage would be ended after the cruise, so the commitment was specifically for that space of time. If you can show me somewhere that says you must agree to the whole “til death do us part” to legally recieve a governmental marriage…well then I’ll concede that point to you as well.
either way…good stuff.
Next Question:
1 Timothy 2:9-15
How do we take this? How literally do we follow it? I mean if I were to take it 100% literally then it would be wrong for Mrs. Beumer to be the Principal of Crosspoint. It was wrong for me to pay attention to Vanita during her mini-sermon in class at Moody that one time.
So…just interested in hearing opinions on this.
i’ve had this song stuck in my head most of the week, and i knew it was by a christain band, but didn’t realize until this morning that it was Holliday. it turned out to be “let your love be my love”. and i haven’t even listened to it recently.
so i’m listening now. can anyone give me an update? oh… nevermind, i just found their website. 
btw, jon, did you design the shirts? i like the brown one. could someone give me details on how it looks?
I just caught your bottom line joke Drew…I thought it was very funny actually. Good job!
I don’t entirely understand your second paragraph. I cannot, thus, respond to all of your comments explicitly, but I will try to respond to elements I saw in the post.
Everything we do reflects on God because of our relationship with Him. To do something as selfish as to enter a marriage to get something and dissolving the marriage thereafter would bring shame to the name of Christ. You would be questioned on every commitment from then on. (If you broke that committment after it wasn’t useful to you, what other committments will you break? If you were only using that relationship to get something for yourself, what are you trying to get out of all of your other relationships? If you treat marriage this way, it must not be very important and can, therefore, along with other relationships and committments, be treated as insignificant?) It would also undermine God, leading one to deduce that if people who claim to be in a relationship with God act in such a way, why would we believe that God does anything for anyone (because that person obviously has no standards)?
You seemed to say that a governmentally recognized marriage has nothing to do with a marriage before God. That is wrong. God established government as an authority over us (Rom. 13:1). Though it may seem indirect, God is over marriage through government as well as presides over marriage of His own recognisance.
We can do all things through Christ. This includes marriage. Many people, though, even in a relationship with Christ, have very much failed in their marriage. What does this say? It takes more than a relationship with Christ to have a good marriage. Don’t think that this is a blasphemous as it sounds. Does it take more than a relationship with Christ to be a good employee? Yes! It takes hard work, committment, determination, and skill. Why should we expect that marriage would take less than our job?
You also said that your relationship with Christ is a system that is in place to keep you accountable to your marriage, and that this relationship is the system used in other situatons. Consider this: Christ may be the major resistance between us and those sins, but often enough, those sins likely only effect us and God. The sins that effect others as well have more roadblocks (i.e. murder, theft, etc. bring consequences from God as well as the government). This is exactly why we have governmnet. It’s like a social contract that says we all agree that there are standards for how we want to live (not get robbed or killed, etc.), and this contract is the means by which we attain that way of life.
Disclaimer: 1) There are, and always will be large problems with the method, ideology, and effectiveness of government. Despite this, God still uses it and works through it to bring about His ends.
2) I am decidedly against the government trying to dictate life to the point where it would impose morals on the people. This would never and has never worked. I believe that the role of the government is to protect the way of life of the people, allowing them to choose their own moral systems (even if those systems are wrong).
and I think you are saying something that I was attempting to say, except you are drawing a different conclusion from it.
I am saying that yes, what the worlds definition of marriage is does not matter at all to me. With that though, I also do not hold the worlds idea of marriage on the same respect level as God’s idea of marriage. So that is why I would have no problem going into a contract that defined the worlds idea of marriage for something silly like a cruise. Making that contract null and void is completely different than attempting to make a contract null and void that was a “contract” with God and another person…though someone is going to mention the fact that as a Christian all contracts are entered into with God being a 3rd party…to which I would reply that this governmental marriage contract was entered into with the other party agreeing upon its 1 week duration and therefore no contract is being broken.
Anyway.
You also mention my past comments on lack of importance given to governmental marriage. Don’t take that the wrong way. I’m only saying that I think Christians are throwing too much weight behind something that doesn’t have to do with God and fight for the wrong things because of it.
You also mentioned about no “systems in place” to regulate a marriage in God that isn’t equally endorsed by the State…to which I offer up the idea that our relationship with Christ is that system. Screwing up a marriage like that (one that isn’t a “state endorsed marriage”) is equally as wrong as any other thing we do that God tells us not to. Those systems don’t get much flak any other time, so why should they be held to be less reliable in the idea of marriage outside of the state?
Besides…what dummy wouldn’t want to have a “governmental marriage” to coincide with their Godly marriage? Hello….tax relief…
We all, as Christians, have committed ourselves to a relationship with God. Within that committment are standards by which we must live. By aligning youself with God, you become one with Him, taking on His characteristics, agreeing to His authority, and submitting to His standards. There is no longer room for a postmodern redefinition of terms. He has written out His standards for life and godliness.
God and God alone instituted marriage (Gen. 2:24). The World has attempted to distort the objective truth He set forth. We are not of the World. We cannot compare our lives to or take on the standards of the World. To do so would be to turn away from the One who made us and gave proper (as defined by our Holy, soverign God) order to our world.
It’s not about what the government says marriage is. Neither is it how we personally think about things. It is living according to the rule of God.
Related to this, Jimmy, you once said that you didn’t feel that you needed to have the governmnet’s or society’s recognition of your marriage to be faithful to that union. I disagree to an extent. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Probably not. We as people very often lose perspective on truth without reminders. As time passes, our opinion of a situation will change, and we will selfishly seek to change the terms of our committment to fit our desires at the moment. Very often, without an outside, static point of reference to remind us of the exact situation to which we have agreed, we will act in ways that do not match that committment.
Say, for example, you bought a car, agreeing to pay a certain monthly amount for it, but not signing a contract. For a while, while the car is nice and new, you would faithfully pay. Eventually, though, over time, the car would lose its appeal. You begin to desire to get rid of the car and its payments. You have no objective party that will hold you to your agreement, so what is stopping you from doing so? Had you signed a contract, though, there would be systems in place that would hold you to that contract, making you think very serviously about breaking it, likely encouraging you not to.
I acknowledge that marriage has little overall similarity to buying a car, but you get my point.
you are funny. the cruise question is very interesting. i personally believe sex is the consummation of a marriage, but that there is a LOT of weight in the vows you make to someone.
so for me, i guess it depends on the vows. and my friend would also have to know about the arrangement.
if the question is really making a distinction between “legally married” from “biblically married” consider that in a lot of places, living with someone for 7 years makes you legally married. i am also a firm believer that “legally divorced” does not mean biblically divorced. the only justifiable reason for divorce is adultry (and death, but can you really divorce a dead person?).
actually, i wouldn’t do the cruise thing, because i wouldn’t want my legal record haunted by a week-long marriage. plus, my friend might try to take half of everything i own. on the other hand, i could just get remarried to her after the annulment. unless she’s a witch. oh man, that would be bad.
Recent Comments