homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The Ambiguity of Fornication (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The Ambiguity of Fornication
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oddly, this OP is a result of some random insults thrown around in a hell thread I just closed. Basically describing a couple living together long term as fornicators.

Which led me to think, what is a marriage in biblical terms ? The marriage service did not spring up fully formed on the occasion of the resurrectoin of Christ. So how would a Christian have married in 100AD ?

If someone is in a committed, monogamous relationship - is this in fact a marriage in the biblical sense, regardless of whether a service has taken place ? If not, why not ?

[ 10. November 2014, 18:50: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In a biblical sense, it probably is marriage. In a Christian sense, it certainly is not.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What would need to be different for it to be a marriage in the Christian sense ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In a case where there are no other legal or customary markers of marriage (e.g. vows, license, etc.) I think there would at least have to be the intention of a permanent commitment on both sides. "Let's try this and see how it works out for a while" wouldn't cut it. But for the sake of public honesty (as Luther would put it) the couple intending to be married really ought to go put a legal or churchly signpost on it, minimal though that might be. Otherwise, it causes confusion.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
What would need to be different for it to be a marriage in the Christian sense ?

An understanding that the relationship is a parable of permanence - ordained by God - and (in the context of God's people) modelled on Ephesians 5 and other passages in the New Testament, especially the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It was only after the Council of Trent that marriages required a priest present and about the same time marriage became a civil responsibility. Prior to that marriages were generally arranged purely for secular reasons and often couples would be betrothed shortly after birth.

In England 1753 Lord Hardwick's Formal Marriage Act laid down that a formal ceremony was required in front of an Anglican Priest....so marriage as we know it is a very modern thing and it took a long time for the church to be involved.

I would say, like the caterpillar, that marriage means what you want it to mean.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Incidentally, before the thread in Hell descended into profanitiy and verbal abuse and dead horse territory (particularly thanks to Marvin) the discussion had been about the status of Prince William and Katherine's pre-marital sexual relationship. I suggested that it was fornication and out-of-order for the a future Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.

[ 25. November 2010, 18:46: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Personally, I think that contemporary usage of the word marriage refers largely to administrative or social constructions. It gets you tax breaks, makes you next of kin, adds society's stamp of approval to your relationship, and so on. I don't think this is remotely close to the concept of marriage used in biblical times. In that (more spiritual) sense, I would say that any two people who meaningfully commit themselves to each other are married: in that sense it's a promise made between two people.

It certainly doesn't lay down rules for who gets to be 'head' over the other.

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Personally, I think that contemporary usage of the word marriage refers largely to administrative or social constructions. It gets you tax breaks, makes you next of kin, adds society's stamp of approval to your relationship, and so on. I don't think this is remotely close to the concept of marriage used in biblical times. In that (more spiritual) sense, I would say that any two people who meaningfully commit themselves to each other are married: in that sense it's a promise made between two people.

It certainly doesn't lay down rules for who gets to be 'head' over the other.

You say 'who gets to be' as if headship is a perk of being male. That's a bit like saying that crucifixion was one of the perks of being Jesus.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You say 'who gets to be' as if headship is a perk of being male. That's a bit like saying that crucifixion was one of the perks of being Jesus.

Historically, I think it's quite easy to argue that having authority over women was definitely a perk of being male. I understand that your tortuous definitions of headship don't work quite like that, but your interpretation is a minority one.

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783

 - Posted      Profile for Loquacious beachcomber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Numpty, if you had a look at the marriage registry in the church which I serve (and I certainly would not allow you to!) you would find that out of just over 120 weddings I have conducted, over 100 of the couples had the same address when they applied for the licence.
In other words (gasp!) they were living together before being married.
I did not presume to "rebuke" any of these couples; instead, I performed a marriage for them, rejoicing that I had the privilege of offering the blessings and grace of God on their lives together.
I did not consider them to be fornicators, I considered them to be children of God beloved of God.

Before you attempt to remove the speck from Prince William's eye, might I suggest that you first remove the judgmental log from your own eye.
Just where you shove said log after its removal I will leave to your most fertile imagination.

--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)

Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You say 'who gets to be' as if headship is a perk of being male. That's a bit like saying that crucifixion was one of the perks of being Jesus.

Historically, I think it's quite easy to argue that having authority over women was definitely a perk of being male.
If you equate 'having authority' as 'being free to exploit and abuse' then, yes, I can see how that could be argued from history. It can't, however, be argued from Apostolic teaching.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If you equate 'having authority' as 'being free to exploit and abuse' then, yes, I can see how that could be argued from history. It can't, however, be argued from Apostolic teaching.

Unfortunately, it frequently was.

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have friends who have bought a house together, had a child together, have been together 12 years, and have an exclusive monogamus relationship (as far as I know) - they happen to be atheists. I would still see that relationship as basically a marriage.

I seem to remember someone posting yonks ago about the orthodox accepting such committed relationships as marriage. Aside from the secular and legal arrangements - would other traditions see that as reasonable ?

Many people choose not to go through a formal ceremony of marriage because the trappings of it are so off putting and stressful. But I think it maybe that here in the UK we have a lot of 'silent' marriages - by which I mean committed loving couples who are faithful to each other. Perhaps embedded in the context of a faith tradition, perhaps not.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048

 - Posted      Profile for Jessie Phillips     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
The marriage service did not spring up fully formed on the occasion of the resurrectoin of Christ. So how would a Christian have married in 100AD ?

If someone is in a committed, monogamous relationship - is this in fact a marriage in the biblical sense, regardless of whether a service has taken place ? If not, why not ?

Good question. But isn't there a scene in one of the Gospels where a woman tells Jesus that she has no husband, and then Jesus tells her that she has had five previous husbands, and the man she is currently living with is not her husband?

That alone seems to suggest to me that even in the time of the Gospels, there was a distinction to be made between merely living with someone, and being married to someone. Then again, perhaps I'm reading more into it than is really there.

Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Numpty, if you had a look at the marriage registry in the church which I serve (and I certainly would not allow you to!) you would find that out of just over 120 weddings I have conducted, over 100 of the couples had the same address when they applied for the licence. In other words (gasp!) they were living together before being married.

Yes, the stats are about the same for me, although I haven't conducted that many weddings.

quote:
I did not presume to "rebuke" any of these couples; instead, I performed a marriage for them, rejoicing that I had the privilege of offering the blessings and grace of God on their lives together.
I tend to differentiate between non-Christian couples who co-habit and self-identifying Christians who co-habit. I wouldn't rebuke the former, but I certainly would encourage (exhort, admonish etc) the latter to marry.

quote:
I did not consider them to be fornicators, I considered them to be children of God beloved of God.
On whose authority do you presume not to consider them fornicators?

quote:
Before you attempt to remove the speck from Prince William's eye, might I suggest that you first remove the judgmental log from your own eye.
Lots of people on the Ship, including you, seem to have no idea whatsoever what Jesus means by that particular teaching.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If you equate 'having authority' as 'being free to exploit and abuse' then, yes, I can see how that could be argued from history. It can't, however, be argued from Apostolic teaching.

Unfortunately, it frequently was.
But that's no reason to reject what the Apostolic witness actually does say.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's true. But the fact that Paul was viewing the world through distinct cultural blinders is definitely grounds for reinterpreting what he said.

[Cross-posted. I was replying to CMN's post-before-last.]

Dang - did you just delete a post, CMN, or was I seeing things?

[ 25. November 2010, 19:30: Message edited by: Imaginary Friend ]

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's nothing 'ambiguous' about entering a sexual relationship with someone to whom one is not formally committed in covenantal love. It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so. That is unacceptable behaviour for a Christian.

[Sorry, I was trying to be clever]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
That's true. But the fact that Paul was viewing the world through distinct cultural blinders is definitely grounds for reinterpreting what he said.

I'm sorry but I can't and don't accept that view of scripture. I simply do not believe that the Holy Spirit has allowed the Apostolic writings to be culturally skewed in that way.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why is formal committment more important than actual committment ? I don't really want this to be all about the royals - but a decade is a hell of a long test drive. It suggests that a lot more is involved in that relationship - that we should not simply dismiss.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so.

Living together in a committed relationship is not 'test driving' of any sort.

The way a woman is spoken of here as if she were a car is, in my view, far worse than any lack of a piece of paper to 'prove' committment.

Most young people live together before they marry these days - and good on 'em I say.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
Why is formal committment more important than actual committment ? I don't really want this to be all about the royals - but a decade is a hell of a long test drive. It suggests that a lot more is involved in that relationship - that we should not simply dismiss.

I suppose the Roman Catholic understanding of marriage as a sacrament is helpful in answering this question. If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so.

Living together in a committed relationship is not 'test driving' of any sort.
It is if there's any hint of contingency, which there definitely is with the case in question.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
That's true. But the fact that Paul was viewing the world through distinct cultural blinders is definitely grounds for reinterpreting what he said.

I'm sorry but I can't and don't accept that view of scripture. I simply do not believe that the Holy Spirit has allowed the Apostolic writings to be culturally skewed in that way.
Fair enough. I don't want to argue hermeneutics with you so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

This is a genuine question for my general knowledge: Why?

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783

 - Posted      Profile for Loquacious beachcomber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps, Numpty, the origin of the word "fornicate is unclear to you:

From Wilipedia:
Etymology
The origin of the word derives from Latin. The word fornix means "an archway" or "vault" and it became a common euphemism for a brothel as prostitutes could be solicited in the vaults beneath Rome. More directly, fornicatio means "done in the archway"; thus it originally referred to prostitution. The first recorded use of the noun in its modern meaning was in 1303 AD, with the verb fornicate first recorded around 250 years later.


Visiting a prostitute would be an example of fornication, Numpty.
Living together in a loving, committed relationship would not.
The fact that the King James Version of the Bible, in translating, used the word fornicate, which was, at that time, a relatively new word in the English language, does not mean that it was translating a word for couples living together before marriage. It just does not.
IMO.

--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)

Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so.

Living together in a committed relationship is not 'test driving' of any sort.
It is if there's any hint of contingency, which there definitely is with the case in question.
How do you know?

--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

Excuse me butting in from the Under grace (well, mostly)? thread and being a bit provocative, but isn't this legalism? Where on earth is that in Scripture? (Don't get me wrong. I can see lots of good reasons for marriage as a public ceremony and rejoice in the fact that in France it has long been a civil ceremony, not a religious one, but what is a 'Christian marriage in the fullest sense' unless you think it's a sacrament?)

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
That's true. But the fact that Paul was viewing the world through distinct cultural blinders is definitely grounds for reinterpreting what he said.

I'm sorry but I can't and don't accept that view of scripture. I simply do not believe that the Holy Spirit has allowed the Apostolic writings to be culturally skewed in that way.
Fair enough. I don't want to argue hermeneutics with you so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

This is a genuine question for my general knowledge: Why?

For the same reason that actual participation in the Eucharist is important for continuation in the faith. You appear to be advocating a sort 'Salvationist' understanding of marriage.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lola

Ship's kink
# 627

 - Posted      Profile for Lola     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Spiffy - I think that William has said he wanted Kate to have the opportunity to see what she would be taking on, given the pressures that were put upon his mother by virtue of her marriage.

Although, that implies to me that the Royal Family and the press were the ones being "test driven".

Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so.

Living together in a committed relationship is not 'test driving' of any sort.
It is if there's any hint of contingency, which there definitely is with the case in question.
How do you know?
Because he said so in his television interview.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
Spiffy - I think that William has said he wanted Kate to have the opportunity to see what she would be taking on, given the pressures that were put upon his mother by virtue of her marriage.


And what is wrong with that?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

Excuse me butting in from the Under grace (well, mostly)? thread and being a bit provocative, but isn't this legalism?
No, it's obedience. What some on this thread are advocating is anti-nominaism. There's a difference.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
Spiffy - I think that William has said he wanted Kate to have the opportunity to see what she would be taking on, given the pressures that were put upon his mother by virtue of her marriage.


And what is wrong with that?
Nothing whatsoever.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's obedience.

Obedience to what or to whom, precisely?

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's obedience.

Obedience to what or to whom, precisely?
Apostolic teaching as per Acts 2:42 and to Jesus Christ as per Matthew 28:20.

[ 25. November 2010, 20:16: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
Spiffy - I think that William has said he wanted Kate to have the opportunity to see what she would be taking on, given the pressures that were put upon his mother by virtue of her marriage.

Although, that implies to me that the Royal Family and the press were the ones being "test driven".

Perhaps he's a smarter prince than some would give him credit for.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lola

Ship's kink
# 627

 - Posted      Profile for Lola     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.

You've explained that your actions in a similar situation would be to rebuke and exhort the couple to marry. OK - but would you feel the need to do so publicly?

William and Kate have been public about the fact that they have been waiting to be sure they could have a successful marriage. I am not sure that they have made any public statements about their sexual relationship which would appear to be a more private matter. Why assume that they have not been privately rebuked and exhorted to marry?

Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's obedience.

Obedience to what or to whom, precisely?
Apostolic teaching as per Acts 2:42 and to Jesus Christ as per Matthew 28:20.
I don't see marriage as you describe it in either of those verses (or in fact at all). (I do recall some strong advice from some apostle or other about not marrying and I am fond of quoting how the same apostle exhorts believers to publicly hand a wayward church member over to Satan so their body can be destroyed). You're going to have to fill in some gaps for me.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's obedience.

Obedience to what or to whom, precisely?
Apostolic teaching as per Acts 2:42 and to Jesus Christ as per Matthew 28:20.
You're going to have to fill in some gaps for me.
The Apostles' teaching contains sufficient instruction about marriage as does the teaching of Jesus.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

This is a genuine question for my general knowledge: Why?
For the same reason that actual participation in the Eucharist is important for continuation in the faith. You appear to be advocating a sort 'Salvationist' understanding of marriage.
Okay, I know what all the words in that reply mean but I don't get your point.

In particular, I don't get the analogy between the Eucharist and marriage. The marriage sacrament is surely a one-time thing. Eucharist (at least in the memorialist sense) is an ongoing thing, isn't it?* If anything I would say that it is you that is speaking in salvationist terms: that it is the ceremony that 'seals the deal' rather than the daily commitment to love and respect your partner. That 'daily marriage' is quite apart from a ceremony or the possession of a marriage certificate.

* I admit that my knowledge of the details of Anglican sacraments is not strong, so please correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Further to SF's post, my understanding of porneia (the word the KJV translates as "fornication") is that it, too, has connotations of prostitution. Again, no hint of the "licit after marriage only" view.
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.

You've explained that your actions in a similar situation would be to rebuke and exhort the couple to marry. OK - but would you feel the need to do so publicly?

William and Kate have been public about the fact that they have been waiting to be sure they could have a successful marriage. I am not sure that they have made any public statements about their sexual relationship which would appear to be a more private matter. Why assume that they have not been privately rebuked and exhorted to marry?

Prince Charles came very close, albeit in a tongue in cheek way.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

This is a genuine question for my general knowledge: Why?
For the same reason that actual participation in the Eucharist is important for continuation in the faith. You appear to be advocating a sort 'Salvationist' understanding of marriage.
Okay, I know what all the words in that reply mean but I don't get your point.
The Salvation Army, AFAICT, advocate a totally spiritualized approach to the dominical sacraments in which the outward and visible signs are seen as unnecessary adjuncts to the gracious spiritual reality. That is what you are suggesting concerning marriage.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a Quaker I do share that view.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, Salvationist in that sense. Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. I don't think ceremonies matter one jot: What's said honestly in private between the two individuals (presumably with God looking on) is far more important.

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Apostles' teaching contains sufficient instruction about marriage as does the teaching of Jesus.

Don't tell my church this, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's pretty hard to make a case for them (Jesus and the apostles, that is) teaching anything about marriage that is not applicable to long-term commitments by couples living together (ok, talking here about heterosexual couples to avoid this descending straight into DH).

If I was put to it in public to defend marriage I would say things about public commitment and the importance of social clarity and so on, but I would be really hard pushed to quote chapter and verse on either of them.

(If you want to argue that all of the apostles' teaching is a rule book for us to follow in obedience to Christ, then I am dying to find out how you interpret the 'handing-over-wayward-believers-to-Satan' instruction mentioned above in terms of contemporary orthopraxy.)

A christian counsellor friend of mine says, not unseriously, that the contemporary definition of marriage is when people do their laundry in the same wash.

[ 25. November 2010, 20:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps baptism, rather than Holy Communion, would be a better analogy.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lola

Ship's kink
# 627

 - Posted      Profile for Lola     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Numpty

Are you teasing? Most of your points seem to state that you are fully backed up by something (Bible verse, something said in a TV interview)but without telling us what, why or how.

You don't tell us what it was that William said on TV or why you think that means he was not committed to his relationship with Kate. I donj't suppose that helps Spiffy as I doubt she's seen the show. Might Spiffy not find that rather unconvincing as a response and dismiss your point of view?

You have not told us how you understand the verses you quoted to Eutychus. And I don't know what you mean about Prince Charles either? Do tell!

(Also - and this is not meant to concince anyone but as a light-hearted comment- at the moment when I read your posts it reminds me of Educating Rita when Rita turns in an essay the full text of which is "Do it on the Radio")

Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.

You've explained that your actions in a similar situation would be to rebuke and exhort the couple to marry. OK - but would you feel the need to do so publicly?

William and Kate have been public about the fact that they have been waiting to be sure they could have a successful marriage. I am not sure that they have made any public statements about their sexual relationship which would appear to be a more private matter. Why assume that they have not been privately rebuked and exhorted to marry?

Prince Charles came very close, albeit in a tongue in cheek way.
I'm really quite curious, Numpty, why you have such a strong opinion about this. As far as I can tell through the anonymous nature of the Internet, you are not a member of this couple, nor are you their parent or their priest. You were asked upthread for pastoral advice regarding some Biblical citations, and you blew that off.

It makes me wonder whether you're engaging in this discussion across several threads because you enjoy gossiping about famous people's private lives instead of a pastoral provision.

--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools