Should unmarried people be arrested for living together?

No, but if they are Christians they should be ashamed of themselves.

If Christians understood (and lived!) the reality of what marriage represents and the importance that God places on it then perhaps the world would hold marriage in honor once again. Now it means nothing.

 

I don't understand what a marriage liscense does that seems to get some folks get all worked up. The Biblical definition of marriage has nothing to do with the government. You declare your love for each other in front of God, not the governor.

People who live together, dedicated to each other, stay together, forsake all others, until death do them part have met the commands God gave them. They do not need to worry about what others think.

 

I know a lot of men who share homes. Some of them are gay couples, but most aren't. Times is hard.

As far as church goes, the Pastor has been charged with being the "caretaker" of the assembly. You can choose to be there, or not. But I guess most good pastors will consider an unmarried couple, or a homosexual couple welcome guests, but would not make them members in the curch.

But I think a couple that considered themselves Christian but never obtained a marriage liscence, should consider if their presence is going to disrupt the church, or cause someone to stumble, before trying to become a member.

 

What gets folks so worked up about getting a license?

We need to stop making excuses for folks. God ain't told nobody to shack up and fornicate and play house.

So if they are Biblically marrying, grab a pastor declare your love, and let the pastor join them in marriage covenant with each other and God.

What's so difficult about that? The laws of the land ask that a marriage license be obtained. It's not against God's law to get the license, so what is the big problem people have with getting married with a license?

Two Christians who have "married themselves" but not obtained a license and are living together present the same stumbling block as do any two other unmarried people.

It will look like someone is living together and having sexual relations. And at that point, neither of two need say anything to anyone else about premarital sex being sinful.

 

Absolutely.:thumbsup: If they have not been joined in holy matrimony by a minister of the Gospel, the Church is simply gonna view it as shacking up.

 

If it is an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, go ahead and assume that people will assume the worst. we are not to give the appearance that something is going on.That's why you don't do it.:thumbsup:

 

No she shouldn't have been arrested. But if she was a Christian, she should not have been living with someone to whom she was not married.

 

Yes, even though there isn't verse one to support it. It is a legalistic mindset. We freed ourselves from having to give to the Anglican Church AND the Queen to get married, only to turn around and give that money to Baptist preachers and state attorney's fees.

 

If this discussion was going to be about unmarried people in church, why did it start out as a legal question ?

 

And isn't the O/T expression "(insert biblical male name) took a wife..." ? Once the relationship is consumated, they are married, in God's eyes.

 

And in THIS regard, give to Caesar what is Caesar's. If the world demands a marriage license and it is not in opposition to God's law, get the marriage license just as you get a license to drive.

What does the money have to do with obedience?

If the state requires the paper, then any Christian who doesn't get the paper and is shacking up is perceived the same way as the unsaved, unmarried fornicator.

 

Perhaps by some. A lot of folks out here never got the paper. I'd like to see you tell one of them they're a fornicator.

Like I said, the preacher takes care of the church. It's up to him who he brings to the congregation for membership.

 

Hmmm. If I'm not mistaken, Mary and Joseph were married before they had sex.:laugh:

If we are in submission to the laws of the government( as long as they don't violate God's laws), then it appears that TODAY, or since the licensing was instituted, marriage begins with that paper.

 

But "Ceasar" in this case does not require a liscense.

Comparison fail.

 

What kind of ceremony was it ?

Like I said, it is not illegal to co-habitate. So people living together as man and wife are breaking no law, and therefore you cannot say they are not in submission.

 

I don't have a problem telling folks they are doing something contrary to the way God's word prescribes.

Does Montana not require a marriage license?Has the pastor joined them before God during a ceremony?

There has got to be something more than just an unmarried couple who have had sex and then declared themselves to be married, thereby declaring all future sexual relations to be moral and God-honoring.

 

Then find some verses to support it. You shouldn't just throw that "fornicator" word around. Show me a verse that says a pastor has to bless a relationship before God approves.

"The two are joined as one", and any relations outside it are adultery. That is the biblical mandate. Ceremonies are for the family and friends, not God.

 

As they were Jewish and seemed to keep Jewish customs of the day, i imagine it was probably a betrothal, which is a type of ceremony.

If the law requires a license to be married, why can I not say you are not in submission if you don't have one and are living as man and wife?