Living in Sin or just roommates who love each other?

[Truman]

I really do think it would be funny if people in church....God love 'em....would just succumb to their desires and just sniff each other's butts when they walk in.

You gotta put a warning up, man! It is breakfast time and I was about to put another spoonful of oatmeal into my mouth! I could've choked! Lol

 

[Truman]

Last time I checked, the Christian divorce rate was higher than that of non-believers.
Pastors, caterers, and lawyers are happy, though!
And making money's what it's all about, ain't it?
Jesus said that we'd do greater works that Him, though expanding the grounds for divorce isn't what I think He meant.

 

[Lambano]

Last time I checked, the Christian divorce rate was higher than that of non-believers.
Pastors, caterers, and lawyers are happy, though!
And making money's what it's all about, ain't it?
Jesus said that we'd do greater works that Him, though expanding on grounds for divorce isn't what I think He meant.

The panhandler downtown had a sign that read, “Please help! My ex-wife’s lawyer was better than mine!” I gave him a fiver for originality.

 

[McFearless]

Two seniors in their 70's one widowed one divorced love each other. They decide to move in together. They have no desire to get married this late in life. They have separate bedrooms, no sexual relations, no joint bank accounts but truly love each other and for the most part are viewed as in a relationship.

Are they living in sin?

The

Paul referred to it.
I was going to bring this up before, because the case was being made that 'legal marriage' is a modern invention.
Not so:

"1Do you not know, brothers (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. " Romans 7:1-2

I’ll just finish Paul’s quote, so it doesn’t leave any confusion. (Romans 7:3-4)

(Btw, I’m not accusing you of misleading anything, since your argument is that legal marriage isn’t a modern thing - and your reference clearly shows that brother ).

“3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.”

If we are dead to the law, one could argue that the law doesn’t apply to us, if we are born again with Jesus. That’s also the reason we need the Holy Spirit as a guide - because the law is flawed, not that it isn’t right, but because it motivates us to break it.
To argue that legal marriage is a modern invention, is clearly flawed, but it’s not that far off. The institution of marriage and family is constantly changing with the times, each culture have different ways of living/viewing marriage.
A marriage is only a contract (pact) between a man and his father in law, or brother in law/wife. Today people make agreements on different terms, terms unthinkable to the Orthodox Jewish culture.

I believe the reason for the question is much more important than the question itself. I suspect that social sanctions and fear of judgement motivates this question.
In many ways it seems that people are too busy with how other people are living their lives. Christianity wasn’t supposed to imprison people in rules and secret church police (nosy churchgoers), we should (as a Christian community) trust in our brothers/sisters and the Holy Spirit within them. I know that Paul addresses this when he mentioned the son, who is living with his fathers wife.
(1 Corinthians:5) but that incident also creates a space, where one member of the church can’t be a part of it because of the humiliation and mistreatment from his son and his wife. In many cases there is no third party victim but the church members still seems to be more eager to turn their backs than to let their light shine. It’s time we strip Christianity from our individual cultural standards, so Christianity can become culture of love.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I really do think it would be funny if people in church....God love 'em....would just succumb to their desires and just sniff each other's butts when they walk in.

Mental note to self: Don't go to Grailhunter's church.

 

[farouk]

Why do you draw the line at common sense? The weak do not adhere to common sense.

It is common sense that the couple is not necessarily sinning. But the weak think otherwise.

It doesn't sound to me like you are absolutely interested in refraining from what is perceived as sin since you draw the line at "common sense".

Interesting!

@Rudometkin It seems to me that on the one hand there may be the facts of the situation; on the other, there might be what others, not knowing the full facts, might perceive to be potentially the case. It would seem wise to err on the side of caution and discretion. Perceptions about people rolling condoms can lead to talk based on inaccurate information, and this does not help anyone or glorify God.

 

[farouk]

Sex is not a sin but in the world today there is so much more pressure to concentrate on the physical aspect of a relationship right from the beginning rather than slowly getting to know one another before the first bedroom encounter.

@Pearl I do think that there is a public as well as private aspect to marriage and as well as the Godward aspect, the public aspect does need to be recognized; in fact, having the public aspect recognized is really part of honoring God, I do believe, before shutting themselves in for the first of their many bedroom encounters. A lot of Christians would say that having the public aspect recognized first even makes the first bedroom encounter more wholesome and memorable.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

”..marriage is a crime against God, because it changed the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth....Marriage was prostitution of the members of Christ, and married people ought to blush at the state in which they live.” Written by St. Ambrose

In the year 553 A.D. At a Council of bishops in Macon, religious leaders debate and voted on whether or not females had souls. By a narrow margin the Bishops decide that females have souls. Like it was their choice.

Penitential regulation laid down in the 7th century by Theodore, Bishop of Canterbury, forbade menstruating women to take communion or even enter the church. At the French Synod of Meraux, menstruating women were specifically forbidden to come to church

We move forward to the year 940 A.D. A well-respected religious leader named Odo, who was the leader of the Monks of Cluny, wrote, “To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure.” And considered “….the beauty of a woman the greatest of snares.”

Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274, Italian professor of philosophy, Catholic theologian, and doctor of the Church, sainted in 1323. One of the few geniuses of Christianity. He had great potential, but his downfall was that he built his theology on the teachings of Saint Augustine and Aristotle and other Greek concepts which made his conclusions inherently flawed. Christianity could have been a better religion if he would have thought it through with his own brilliant mind. In his writings he responded to many negative statements towards women, so not all of what I have here came from him. On the topic of the production of women; “...woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power in the male seed tends to the productions of perfect likeness (male babies) according to the masculine sex; while the productions of woman comes from defect in the active power.” (In other words, corrupt or damages the male seed to produce a female baby.) He goes on to explain that women are subject to men because men are more intelligent and women are necessary for the balance of good and evil, and that although they are an occasion for sin, they are necessity so male babies can be born... “Nor was it fitting for the common good (men) to be destroyed in order that individual evil (women) might be avoided.” On the topic of sex, Thomas equates innocence and purity to men, but as far as women, only if they are virgins. Mind and soul based on the status of their vaginas! But then he does recognize the necessity of sex, but then also pointing out its inherently sinful nature, nearly implying that in this world, life cannot exist without sex and sin....This is straight up Greek philosophy. Because of his focus on St. Augustine and Aristotle, his writings were elegant and intellectual horse manure. Such a shame...but he never supported the mistreatment of women.

There are hundreds of these type of misogynic statements from the most renown and influential Christian leaders of the Middle Ages. And again many were labeled Fathers and Doctors of the Church and most were canonized as Saints. Nearly every Christian denomination was influenced by the minds and hearts of these men. So short of these famous Christian leaders being insane.....is there really a mystery as to why these leaders of Christianity subscribed to the torture of the, we will just say "the soft areas of women" and eventually producing a book on how to torture women. And then from there it get really bad! Bad enough that I cannot describe it and if I did it would make some puke!

Your concern for marriage is struggling in all this history. Marriage is buried in the fallout of this demonization of women, sex, and nudity. In the Old Testament marriage is something that God gave Man his own privacy, it is a cruel period and marriage arrangements had their negative side, regarding property, polygamy, and concubinage. In the New Testament the focus is on saving souls and spreading the Gospel because they think Christ could return any day. Romance, marriage, and families were just not a priority.

No civil courts for Christians...Churches are not being built because the Romans would just come in and take them. Churches are being built after the Edict of Milan....February 313 AD. The several Ecumenical Councils that occur over the centuries do not address marriage specifically and the witch-hunts and inquisitions soon follow the main councils. The Church sinks into a form of religious / social insanity that had no support for marriages. Coming out of this insanity was a slow process and was not at the top of the list to correct.

Church corruption becomes the focal point. Finally the Church address the fact that females should have a say in who they marry....consensual marriages....then in the 12th century the church makes marriage a sacrament but still did not require a wedding or vows....they are talking of the benefits of having a clergy present if you did have a wedding. Then the Protestant reform happened and shortly after the Protestants required wedding ceremonies for marriages. By this time the wedding customs had taken on the Roman weddings as a template. Then the Catholic Church makes it a requirement to have weddings and again try to take control.... making a rule that marriages can only be done by Catholic priests and only Catholic wedding are valid. So is the state of marriages until around the 1500's.

Now you may understand why I do not subscribe to the demonization of women, sex, and nudity, because that line of thinking drove the Church nutz! Attraction, love, sexual desire, sex, to have and to hold, children and family, is a matter of love and respect, designed by God. No one needs to be sniffing our people's crouches.

Besides the importance of weddings and marriages, we get into the topics of women and slavery and the Christian morals that were taught by the Holy Spirit, "in more modern times." No Fundamentalists...God was not done with us! Much to learn after the Bible.

Thank you for posting this. It reinforces my conviction that the organized church went wrong almost as soon as the original Apostles left the scene. I think the church has not existed as an authorized and identifiable entity since. As an official organization the church has been spirit-less and corrupt since the time of the so-called church fathers.

 

[Grailhunter]

Thank you for posting this. It reinforces my conviction that the organized church went wrong almost as soon as the original Apostles left the scene. I think the church has not existed as an authorized and identifiable entity since. As an official organization the church has been spirit-less and corrupt since the time of the so-called church fathers.

Well Christianity quickly developed a negative view of sex pretty quick. Paul was fielding the question; Is it better not to touch a woman? On the topic of helping widows, Paul was taking about them washing the feet of the saint. LOL to get help! LOL 1st Timothy 5:10
Well this is a legitimate topic....
Is it why Christ did not return?
Can there be a church organized by humans that could not be corrupt?
Do all organized churches have to be shut-down for Him to return?
Would people think it was the Anti-Christ if Christ returned to form a one religion church?
What would you think would need to happen to get Christ to return?
Is it a set date.....a billion years in the future?

 

[Grailhunter]

As an official organization the church has been spirit-less and corrupt since the time of the so-called church fathers.

The Fathers of the Church were good people, but the focus of Satan in regard to women and sex was right on them. Satan is a schemer....an immortal schemer....he plans for the long run. Nothing predicted nearly 260 years of Roman persecutions, that was all Satan, Hell on earth. Then if you have a mortal enemy....attack and confuse their reproduction and the stability of the family unit. Satan would not want his enemies to reproduce....so it was imperative to make reproducing the worst of all sins....not just sinful....but dirty, nasty, and sinful! So only the nastiest lowlifes would do that!...women marry and go to church and here the message.....sex is dirty, nasty, and sinful! So why would a good Christian wife and mother want to do the dirty with her husband.. So a lot of them shutdown and the families break apart.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The Fathers of the Church were good people...

...but obviously Spirit-less.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

On the topic of helping widows, Paul was taking about them washing the feet of the saint. LOL to get help! LOL 1st Timothy 5:10

I don't see a problem with that.
I don't think the church should give a dime to support a woman who has lived a trashy, unfaithful life and now wants support...and is still living that life.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Well this is a legitimate topic....
Is it why Christ did not return?

I don't think there's any connection whatsoever.

Can there be a church organized by humans that could not be corrupt?

No.
Wicked people love places of honor and wealth. They are quick to seize and pollute any and all organizations of men.

Do all organized churches have to be shut-down for Him to return?

Does someone think that?
Is that more church father's crazy talk?

Would people think it was the Anti-Christ if Christ returned to form a one religion church?

The only ones who would know that are genuine, devout Christians.

What would you think would need to happen to get Christ to return?
Is it a set date.....a billion years in the future?

It's a set date. God knows when the grapes will be ripe for harvesting and crushing.

 

[McFearless]

I don't see a problem with that.
I don't think the church should give a dime to support a woman who has lived a trashy, unfaithful life and now wants support...and is still living that life.

For a people saved by grace, I think we could be a little more graceful.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

For a people saved by grace, I think we could be a little more graceful.

Yes, YOU and I can, at our discretion, not the church as an organization.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

but the focus of Satan in regard to women and sex was right on them.

Well, they were morons.
They had the scriptures and, yet, ended up discerning that ridiculous, spirit-less message.
They are responsible for setting the church on the path of cold, dead, ruinous 'religion'.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I wonder how our supposedly great church fathers missed this...

"19A loving doe, a graceful fawn—may her breasts satisfy you always; may you be captivated by her love forever." Proverbs 5:19​

Years ago in a youth group, two of the members were engaged to be married and I was asked if I had a scripture for them. I gave them that one. I'm glad Ambrose or Origien wasn't around to counsel them.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Which reminds me...

For those who want to pooh-pooh the legalities of marriage, and given the fact that Christmas is coming up, lol, what's this nonsense about Joseph being engaged to Mary, then divorcing her?

"...Mary was pledged in marriage to Joseph..." Matthew 1:18

19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and was unwilling to disgrace her publicly, he resolved to divorce her quietly.​

So what, right? Either you're having sex and are married because of it, or you're not having sex and not married.
Well, God seems to have another view of marriage. One not so careless and flippant as some of us have.

 

[McFearless]

Yes, YOU and I can, at our discretion, not the church as an organization.

The church is not a building (although it sometimes have one) it’s not an organization (in the institutional sense), it’s a congregation of God’s people.

Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”

Ephesians 5:25-26
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word”

We are the church! We are not organized as one entity but we sometimes congregate in small organized cells and sometimes they are even unorganized structurally.

The Vatican and other church organizations want us to believe otherwise, that’s their business model.

I believe that Christians from many different backgrounds and creeds are members of God’s church.

Don’t misunderstand me, I think it’s good that people organize in churches(buildings) to worship, pray etc.
Our definition the word of church is usually cultural and based on today’s premises.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't see a problem with that.
I don't think the church should give a dime to support a woman who has lived a trashy, unfaithful life and now wants support...and is still living that life.

Read that again and then respond.