If a man and woman proclaim their love to one another with only God as their witness and they ask God to bless them as man and wife without a ceremony or legal papers, and the man and woman stay faithful to one another and uphold their vows, is this considered in Gods eyes valid? Or is it sinful?
Ok, I don't normally venture into these forums because of how quickly it becomes an opinion war, but I am going to risk it. I have read through most of the posts. Most are simply arguing back and forth it appears. And I *gasp* found myself agreeing with robalan at times. Had that not happened I would have ignored this entirely.
So here is my "opinion" to add to this, since that is pretty much all that is being discussed here.
The OP is definitely making some assumptions here, let me state them:
- Both the man and woman are TRUE believers
- They MUST make each some vow, at a minimum to God, then to each other
- The vows to God must at a minimum be for the man to live as her husband, the woman to live as his wife
If the man and woman are not TRUE believers, they will never approach God in honesty and integrity with God's will in their hearts. This assumption must hold true for the OP to even be considered.
Simply asking for a blessing is one thing. But the OP did mention "they uphold their vows". There is a presumption then that this couple made some vow. If there is no vow to God, then this entire argument falls apart. If the first assumption holds, that they are believers, then they will make a vow to God. And if they make a vow to God, it is logical to conclude they made a vow to each other, though not a requirement and I don't know why I even mentioned it.
Lastly, these vows, for the argument to stand, must include a promise made by the man to live as her husband and the woman to live as his wife or there is no cause for debate, because there is no marriage and therefore no requirements.
So if all 3 assumptions hold we have then: a man and a woman, both true believers, vow to God to live as husband and wife. Ok, that is the baseline of the argument to draw from.
So then, if the man and woman are alive, they exist in some society. Any society of humans has rules, even if they are unwritten. Though a hypothetical case could be crafted, it is irrelevant. We live in a real world. There are no societies of humans without rules. And if the first assumption holds true, then at a minimum they have God's word and laws etched in their heart. So yes, they live in a society with rules.
If the couple do not abide by the rules (we call them laws) of the society in which they live, they are now in error with God. See Romans 13:1
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
To not submit to the local laws of the society you live in is therefore sin.
Now just for discussion's sake, let's grant a case in which the local custom is that no legal papers are required, but the mere testimony of the couple as to their vow is sufficient. Though it is arguable that their verbal and non-verbal testimonies as lived out each day constitute legal papers.
So then is a ceremony required?
Arguably no. However, it depends on what you consider a ceremony. A quick search on The Free Dictionary produces this:
- A formal act or set of acts performed as prescribed by ritual or custom
- A conventional social gesture or act of courtesy
- A formal act without intrinsic purpose; an empty form
- Strict observance of formalities or etiquette
Using definition 2, by the act of the vows themselves, they have fulfilled this definition.
Using definition 3 would render the entire argument a moot point as it trivializes their vows to being empty and useless.
Using definition 4, a ceremony is not required.
So then we have that by definition 2, some kind of ceremony is held, if the assumption of vows holds.
Therefore it is illogical to posit the question as to whether or not a ceremony is required, because the act of vowing to God to live as husband and wife is some ceremony in and of itself.
I must therefore conclude that the only logical response to this OP question is the following:
Marriage outside of the rules of society violates God's requirements for us to live by the laws of the land and is therefore sinful.
This is my opinion. You mileage may vary.
Response was given:
The flaw in your conclusion is, as already stated, that there is nothing in social law or rules that requires a legal marriage for two partners to cohabit domestically.
Nor is there anything in social law making the act of living together unlawful or illegal without the benefit of a marriage license.
This makes your argument and conclusions moot....and the act of not marrying or living together without the benefit of a legal or religious observance not sinful at all based on God's requirements for us to obey the laws of the land.
The Laws of the land do not prohibit this type of arrangement, and therefore living together without the benefit of a marriage certificate remain perfectly legitimate before God based on the social rules test.
My response to that:
Negative on the flaw. Where does the cohabitation reference come from? I never mentioned it. It was not in the OP. Why did you inject it? Cohabitation is irrelevant to the conclusion and was not part of the assumptions or the OP.
And in some American states, per the local social customs AND laws (yes on the books) cohabitation with sexual activity has been illegal in the past. But we are not discussing is it ok to have sex outside of marriage. Again you are introducing something that is irrelevant to the OP and the conclusion.
And you are misquoting the OP when you rearrange the words to suit your cohabitation argument and thus redirect the discussion beyond the OP.
I never addressed cohabitation. It was not part of the OP. If you want to craft a question that incorporates cohabitation I would gladly address that as well.
As far as I can tell, nothing you have said negates my assumptions or conclusions. The cohabitation argument is not part of the question that was being answered.
And another response, quoting another poster:
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ Cohabitation is entirely relevant because the question has been raised by the original poster whether or not a living arrangement by couples without the benefit of a ceremony is valid.
Was this raised in a later post? It is not in original.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~
There is no legal or Biblical mandate to have a civilly or religiously recognized marriage or union.
Point to consider in the old testament. The Jewish culture was closely aligned with local culture when it came to business and contracts. In all cases of marriage in OT (at least that I could find), a woman was "given" in marriage and indeed there were legal penalties in the Mosaic Law for when the giver, the woman, or the receiver broke any of the terms of the contract. And furthermore a "certificate" of divorce was required to be written to terminate that contract. Explain why there are legal implications of contractual violation of marriage and a legal certificate was required by the Mosaic Law to release from contract if marriage was conducted in absence of a civilly or religiously recognized marriage or union.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ The Bible does not prescribe a means by which a marriage should take place or be recognized.
Arguably true. Neither does it prescribe manner of attire, music, dating, cuisine, and many other facets of human existence. Granted.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ Neither do US states. US states recognize anything from common law marriages from other jurisdictions, to common law marriage within their own jurisdictions. Some states even recognize marriages having ocurred after the fact for purposes of probate and inhertance when two people have merely lived together.
All US states require official documentation to be granted legal status as married couples. Even in the form of common law marriage. To obtain the legal status as married, documentation has to be filed. Thus there are 2 primary methods prescribed by most US states. Some may have more. But the first is filing of a marriage certificate that MUST have witnesses that observed the marriage "happening". The second is that the person administering the marriage (i.e. doing the paperwork) is licensed in that state to do so.
All US states recognize each other marriages, and in general this is also part of international law. There are laws in place to protect the marriage internationally and domestically. However in the US, each state is responsible for its own laws, procedures, forms, and processing. That is why some states, notably Virginia for it less stringent requirements, are so popular to get married in.
Just because you can't see the legal machine at work does not mean it does not exist. Marriage and the protection of marriage is also discussed in the United Nations. And they approach these very issues. That is why almost without exception among all the countries that are part of the UN have some legal policy on the prescribed legal attainment of marriage and its preservation.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ Those who choose to cohabit, yet consider themselves married before God with no civil or relgious recognition have no requirements placed upon them by the state to act otherwise, nor is their arrangement deemed illegal by the states.
Some states, though they do not enforce the laws today, retain laws on the books that do just that and were enacted at the foundation of the state. However as they are not enforced I can allow their dismissal for debate.
However, when you turn the argument to the positive, every state has filing laws that require a marriage to be legally filed, usually requiring some small fee, that documents the marriage. This is so that there is proof that there is only one spouse per person (not sure about one particular state). Thus monogamy is supported legally through filing and paperwork. Polygamy is illegal in most states (maybe 49 in all - not sure about one).
Therefore you are incorrect about cohabitants considering themselves married. Indeed, they may think it, but there are legal ramifications. For example if you cohabitate with a "spouse" for a couple of years and then take a job that provides family health insurance, and you do not have proof that your "spouse" is your legal spouse, you are denied benefits in most cases. This is the case for federal employment and *most* large companies. Though some companies now offer medical insurance benefits to a "significant other". This is due mostly to homosexual tolerance and pandering. However, even in those cases, there has to be a documented monogamous relationship. Again, rules.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ This makes your conclusion that a marriage not legally recognized as sinful to be completley false, because there are no "rules" or "laws" requireing such arrangements to be legally recognized or religiously recognized.
No, you have yet to show proof that marriage laws do not exist. Therefore my conclusion as I wrote it stands. I have shown in the above that such rules and laws exist not only domestically but internationally as well. I welcome to hear about exceptions. Yet as I said in my assertions, if you live in human society, there are rules and laws. And it IS the case that marriage is governed by all governments throughout the planet. Any exceptions are just that, exceptions.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ Those who choose such arrangements simply do not share or partake of the legal benefits legal marriages may automatically convey.
Then by choosing not to obey the laws of the land, they are in sin. Again, my conclusion still stands.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ The point is, you claimed that if it goes against local law, it is sin in God's eyes, because God requires us to defer to those in authority over us. While it is true that God requires us to obey the rules....there are no rules to obey in this case.
But there are. Prove it otherwise. All US states, all countries have rules regarding marriage. Prove that statement wrong with more than opinion.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ There are no legal requirements to marry...
There is no requirement to seek marriage. But there are legal requirements for marriage. Blood tests, filing fees, assuring there are no existing marriages, mandatory waiting periods, etc. Again, where is your proof that these do not exist?
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ There are no legal prohibitions against living together or cohabiting or whatever one wants to call it without the benefit of marriage.
True. So what? That was not the question. I can cohabitate with someone of opposite gender for convenience of paying a mortgage and sleep in separate bed rooms. Possibly a dangerous thing to do for sure, but nothing prohibits this. If there is sexual relations, that is sin covered VERY well by the scriptures.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ It therefore remains a false and erroneous conclusion that God considers such arrangements as inately sinful, because no civil laws or rules are being broken. PERIOD.
You are incorrect again. I have shown it clearly and you must show proof otherwise to make that assertion. There are civil rules governing marriage and rights. Are you talking about rights or sex? I think you appear to be justifying sexual relations outside of marriage. That is an entirely different thread. Do not take that up in this one.
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~ Back to the original question:
Please!!!
quote: ORIGINAL: ~name-withheld~quote:The answer to this question here, is an emphatic YES the arrangement is a valid marriage in God's eyes and an emphatic NO it is not sinful.
"If a man and woman proclaim their love to one another with only God as their witness and they ask God to bless them as man and wife without a ceremony or legal papers, and the man and woman stay faithful to one another and uphold their vows, is this considered in Gods eyes valid? Or is it sinful? "
If they live on this planet, then no it is not valid. Yes it is sin. Emphatically. Grammatically. Economically. Ecumenically. Theoretically. Stochastically. Scholastically. I think I have run out.
I ask you please. Show me the proof that there are no laws governing marriage? There is no place you can go to escape social laws, morays, customs, isms, rules, etc. As long as there are societal rules governing marriage, one must follow those rules. Only if those rules directly defy God's ordinances can they be suspect.
Edited: I asked if you were married. I checked out some of your posts. You are married. So I change my question to "are you legally married and gone through the legal process?
Edited again and for the last time.
~name-withheld~, I have now gone through some of your posts about this. You will never agree with me. I will never agree with you. When I saw you make the assertion that one cannot legally marry after divorce I realized something about your posts. Legalistic when convenient. Ignore laws when convenient. I am divorced and quite legally can remarry in God's eyes. Please pm me for disagreement and keep it away from these fine folks.
I cannot continue this debate despite the fact that I like debate. Your faith basis and mine are too far different.
I extract myself from this thread entirely. Have a good day folks. Sorry to have stirred the waters and left, but I see no logic in continuing.
No comments:
Post a Comment