Cohabitation

So it is the "paper" that makes two become one?

 

it has to be more than just the sexual act, for God calls the sexual act outside of marriage fornication or adultery.

 

He also calls it marriage. There is only one way two people can become one. It is called marriage, regardless of who or how many times one marries. They need not be husband and wife, but they should be.

 

so God's Word is lying when it calls people harlots? fornicators? adulterers and adulteresses? I think not!

 

What happens if-- as some speculate-- the state no longer recognizes such a thing as marriage? "Partnerships" may be recognized but the only ceremonies denoting marriage will be done in churches, or whatever body the couple (or more than couple) may choose, but the state recognizes it as no more than contract? Would a man/woman wed in a church be married? And if so, are a man and woman presently 'married' in a church, but without a state-issued license, actually married to the extent they would not be fornicators?

 

Of course God's Word does not lie. I never said there are no fornicators, adulterers, or adulteresses. I simply say what the Bible says. The two shall become one, i.e. the male and the female.

A fornicator does not necessarily have to be a man and a woman, so two "alikes" are not married, for they cannot be in the eyes of God, as they can never procreate. But we see today some are making "Paper" to make this so.

The Paper is for legal purposes of a "will" to protect each other, and children, property, etc. This is the way the "world" thinks. Just give me the paper and we are married. This is not what God says.

 

Just as a paper is a binding contract required for a marriage today, so in Bible times something was required. Else, David would have automatically been married to Bathsheba, and others who committed adultery or fornication.

Look at the story of Tamar. Does the Bible say she became wife of the one she slept with when she conceived? No, Judah said Tamar played the harlot, for she had covered her face.

The sex act did not automatically mean a couple who were single were married at that time. There was more to it.

With Boaz and Ruth it required the passing of a shoe... With others, something different was required. Jacob was required to work for Laban for 7 years for Leah, and another 7 for Rachel. Today, it is paper.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand this hypothetical. Perhaps it will come later. But what I see is what man does is to change law to fit the sign of the times. Marriage is of God, not man.

If the state makes a law such as you say, or any other, whatever the law states as who and who is not a fornicator, would be guilty or innocent according to the Law. But the Law of Man, if it does not agree with God's gift of Marriage, is wrong. We will need to "boot the Law Makers out" if we don't agree with them. But we may be (if not already) in the minority in the too not distant future.

 

He was married to her the very moment they became one. He was not here husband, and she was not his wife. She later became his wife by whatever legalization of the times required.

They became married, but not as husband and wife. It was so then, and it is so now. Marriage does not always a husband and wife make.

Adam and Eve's "whatever" seems to be missing. Cain knew his wife and born a son. Where are the "paper", the "shoe", the "ring", the "preacher", the "church", and the witnesses? They didn't need anything or anyone but themselves for they were the only ones who could become one. The marriage must be consummated to become married, for two can never become one unless the "act of marriage is done".

What you show is the Law of man doing the law in whatever the times brought, work, shoe, cocoanuts, dowries, rings. Times change. Laws of man change with regularity as generations change.

 

Our church is very conservative, and quite old fashion. Being a deacon in the church, my first thought about the older brother and sister living together struck me as ridiculous as far as being something wrong with it.

After talking to a variety of people in our church, my position remains. You know, the problem with a lot of these threads about you can or cannot do this or that, some go to an extreme of a total lack of common sense.

The thought of a brother and sister in their 60s or 70s living together after their spouses had died is quite normal and within the bounds of the Christian life. To show how out of wack the notion is that something is wrong with it, there have been several cases over the years of a similiar arrangement, and in well over 50 years, the thought of it being something sinful or evil never entered my mind until I read it here. Lots of people need to get a life.

 

This is a common problem up here in the North East. They are not having intercourse, they are just under the same roof, sharing bills, etc.

I believe it is an appearance of evil. The sad part is, up here, it is the 60 year-olds that are doing it:BangHead:

 

That is the most ridiculous statement you have made thus far in this thread.

If a man and woman get married, they are husband and wife. Where do you get otherwise? Notice Adam's statement in Genesis 2:

The man and woman are to be joiined as husband and wife, this does not speak of the sex act at all. That comes after they are joined.

This verse here shows that the sex act outside of marriage is not of God, for 'God will judge' the writer penned down for the reader as a warning.

Oh, and in the case of Adam and Eve, Adam did have to do something to receive Eve as his wife... he had to name all the animals for God. Notice:

God said that is was not good for man to be alone and said He would create a helper fit for him. But the very next verse, Adam is naming all the animals, then God causes him to sleep and takes the rib of Adam to creat the woman.

 

Your clarity of thought is understanding in the matter. If they were into adultery or fornicating, it would be wrong; since they are not the "gossips" will "gossip".

 

Whether people are gossiping or not does not give us license to live together outside of marriage.

Paul wrote in Romans 14:

And in 1 Thessalonians 5:

Don't do something just because you think it is good, for it may not be. Since fornication and adultery are both sin, man should not even put himself in a position where others will accuse him of either.

 

This is just as sinful as two homosexuals living together.

 

I think this verse should cover it... "not be even a hint"
It doesn't take much to be a hint...

Ephesians 5:3
(3) But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. (NIV)

 

I like the KJV wording of that verse.

Ephesians 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

 

2 men, or 2 women, sharing living quarters can he a "hint" of something. Does that make it wrong?

 

The context of the verse is to be obeyed --- yes --- if its a "hint" it makes it wrong!!!

Bro. David

 

Either way, it says the same thing....DON'T DO IT!

Don't do anything where it could even be said about you...

I had a aunt that lived with her first cousin.....and the rumors flew, they were in their 60s or 70s....
They did it for economic reasons, but still, the rumors were there.

OK... no jokes about WVians and incest!!!