Author Topic: Evangelical extremist?  (Read 51392 times)

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #350 on: January 05, 2017, 10:36:31 AM »
Marriage is always to be taken seriously, regardless of religion.  However, in Catholicism, marriage is a Sacrament, as it is in the CofE and in the Orthodox Churches who also call Sacraments, "Traditional Mysteries". 

I understand marriage is not a Sacrament in the Church of Scotland and other denominations.


[/quot






Yep, There are but two sacrements in the CofS (in common with most Reformed churche); baptism and Communion.
However Christian marriage is seen as a very solemn and important act where vows before God count - and is therefore only performed by a minister, and is between man and woman.
Ministers can be (and have been) disciplined by Presbytery for performing civil marriage witthout religious content - discipline ranges from censure, through suspension of the right to conduct marriage ceremonies, to dismissal from the ministry.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14561
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #351 on: January 05, 2017, 10:49:51 AM »
OK.This could not have been the right approach, because, as most people would agree, the Bible says it's wrong. They would have been tempting them to act against what their scripture teaches (ie apostatize) in order to keep their licences.

Not really, because as you are trying to establish here, marriage as a spiritual status in the eyes of your god is a different thing to the secular, legal marriage that requires a registrar. If you wish to merge the two then you have to strike a balance between two independent sets of requirements.

As to whether or not 'The Bible' says anything in particular, there are always scholars willing to come down on both sides of any given debate: I've not seen anyone, yet, contradict that point that throughout the New Testament Jesus never has anything to say about gay people...

Quote
The acts of marrying same sex couples and giving practicing homosexuals positions in ministry, both of which a church is currently not required to do, would involve a minister doing something that is against biblical teaching, and thus illogical.

But extolling the virtues of an invisible sky-fairy who is all-powerful but needs your love, despite considering your a flawed, despicable, sinful abberant in need of saving is perfectly logical, right?

Quote
To disallow ministers of religion to act as registrars (for heterosexual couples) would likewise be illogical. This is because the marriage service in (say) a Christian wedding is by nature more 'valid' (probably the wrong word) than a simple civil ceremony, since it is done in the sight of God and includes promises of lifelong faithfulness etc (which civil ceremonies do not require). It thus makes marriages stronger.

As is evidenced by the signicantly lower divorce rate amongst religiously minded people of... oh, wait, no, pretty much everyone sits between 30 and 35%... You might consider it 'more valid', as someone who went through a church wedding (and is still married to the same wonderful lady nearly 20 years later) largely because the picture opportunities were better than the registrar's office, I found most of the waffle about gods got in the way of what actually mattered: how we felt about each other, and how we intended to treat each other.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #352 on: January 05, 2017, 12:57:01 PM »
Hi Outrider,
I am actually similar to you in that I'd quite like a straightforward ceremony without too much waffle (if it ever happens). The idea that we are not in God's presence unless we are in a church is wrong, of course, but I noticed that the civil ceremony requires only legal declarations and contracting words, and promises are an optional extra. Without some kind of requirement for promises to be made it becomes possible to marry someone without loving them or intending to be faithful. The church wedding is designed to at least look like the couple are committing themselves for real, even if they are not intending to (although a civil ceremony can be equally real). Even if there is a lot of waffle, that's preferable imo. I think most people would agree that, for example, a marriage that is contracted just in order to have children, while the couple don't love each other, doesn't have the full meaning it should have.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 01:00:09 PM by Spud »

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14561
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #353 on: January 05, 2017, 01:03:17 PM »
The idea that we are not in God's presence unless we are in a church is wrong, of course,

I agree, but obviously not for the reasons you think that's the case  :P

Quote
I noticed that the civil ceremony requires only legal declarations and contracting words, and promises are an optional extra. Without some kind of requirement for promises to be made it becomes possible to marry someone without loving them or intending to be faithful.

Right? Surely that's between the people involved. Marriage for an incredible length of time had nothing to do with love, it was about heredity, proof of lineage of children and political alliances (certainly in Europe, and to a degree in other cultural backgrounds), and the churches involved themselves to try to get some degree of control on the levers of political power.

Quote
The church wedding is designed to at least look real, even if the couple are not intending it to be (although a civil ceremony can be equally real).

The church wedding, so far as I can tell, is designed to hijack someone's relationship to try and lever religion into everyone's life.

Quote
I think most people would agree that, for example, a marriage that is contracted just in order to have children, while the couple don't love each other, doesn't have the full meaning it should have.

I think that a couple who get married have their own reasons, and it's probably not your or my place to judge them.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #354 on: January 05, 2017, 01:13:20 PM »
Quote
Marriage for an incredible length of time had nothing to do with love, it was about heredity, proof of lineage of children and political alliances (certainly in Europe, and to a degree in other cultural backgrounds), and the churches involved themselves to try to get some degree of control on the levers of political power.
Yeah but that's not 'proper' marriage, is it?

floo

  • Guest
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #355 on: January 05, 2017, 01:16:28 PM »
Yeah but that's not 'proper' marriage, is it?

What is a proper marriage? Marriage is many things to many people, depending on what suits them.

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #356 on: January 05, 2017, 01:35:20 PM »
I noticed that the civil ceremony requires only legal declarations and contracting words, and promises are an optional extra. Without some kind of requirement for promises to be made it becomes possible to marry someone without loving them or intending to be faithful.

I think you'll find, Spud, that most civil weddings include personal promises to each other as written by the couple (sometimes excruciatingly so): the last few I attended all did, including my son's wedding a few months back.

Quote
The church wedding is designed to at least look like the couple are committing themselves for real, even if they are not intending to (although a civil ceremony can be equally real).

Aside from contrived weddings, for residency purposes, what makes you think that most couples who marry aren't committed to each other (at that point anyway)?

Quote
Even if there is a lot of waffle, that's preferable imo. I think most people would agree that, for example, a marriage that is contracted just in order to have children, while the couple don't love each other, doesn't have the full meaning it should have.

How many marriages do you think are 'contracted just in order to have children', especially since people don't have to get married in order to have children, and on what basis are you assuming some marriages don't have 'full meaning'?

Have to say, Spud, I think it unwise to pass judgment on the marriages of others. Aside from all the personal and private dynamic between the couple, that you simply don't and can't know, legally competent marriages between people you don't know are none of your business?

floo

  • Guest
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #357 on: January 05, 2017, 01:53:12 PM »
Those partnerships which include children must ensure they are well cared for, whether their parents are married, unmarried, gay or straight.

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14561
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #358 on: January 05, 2017, 01:55:16 PM »
Yeah but that's not 'proper' marriage, is it?

In whose eyes? It was proper enough for the church, certainly, for  a long time. For a considerable chunk of the modern UK populace it probably wouldn't constitute a 'proper' marriage, no, but then for a considerable chunk of the UK populace there might be objections to: two men; a white man and a black woman; a barren woman and anyone; under 21s; over 60s...

Who gets to make the decision, and on what basis, is sort of the crux of the argument, and in the absence of pressing justifications (such as, say, the immaturity of children) I don't see a justification for the state to put limits on anyone's choice.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #359 on: January 06, 2017, 12:33:25 PM »
I think you'll find, Spud, that most civil weddings include personal promises to each other as written by the couple (sometimes excruciatingly so): the last few I attended all did, including my son's wedding a few months back.

Aside from contrived weddings, for residency purposes, what makes you think that most couples who marry aren't committed to each other (at that point anyway)?

How many marriages do you think are 'contracted just in order to have children', especially since people don't have to get married in order to have children, and on what basis are you assuming some marriages don't have 'full meaning'?

Have to say, Spud, I think it unwise to pass judgment on the marriages of others. Aside from all the personal and private dynamic between the couple, that you simply don't and can't know, legally competent marriages between people you don't know are none of your business?

I don't think that "most couples who marry aren't committed to each other". The lack of requirement for vows to actually be said does however leave room for one or both members of a couple to not be totally serious.

Because the ideal is that a couple love each other and remain together for life, an organisation such as the church writes this into the ceremony in some way so as to make sure people don't get married without being accountable.

That benefit would be lost if a minister had to resign from his role as registrar altogether. Maybe this is why it was feared that SSM would lead to a "watering down of marriage".

floo

  • Guest
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #360 on: January 06, 2017, 12:40:09 PM »
Ideally marriage should mean people are in it for the long term, but if it breaks down and cannot be fixed, they should part. No one should stay together just for the sake of the kids, a bad atmosphere in the home with rowing parents is NOT fun for children! :o

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #361 on: January 06, 2017, 12:46:54 PM »
I don't think that "most couples who marry aren't committed to each other". The lack of requirement for vows to actually be said does however leave room for one or both members of a couple to not be totally serious.

How do you identify those you conclude aren't serious? To what extent couples make use of vows is surely a matter for them and is also a matter of personal taste. Tell me, Spud, do people who have a religious wedding ever divorce?

Quote
Because the ideal is that a couple love each other and remain together for life, an organisation such as the church writes this into the ceremony in some way so as to make sure people don't get married without being accountable.

I'd have thought compatibility would be a factor long before any decision to marry, 

Quote
That benefit would be lost if a minister had to resign from his role as registrar altogether. Maybe this is why it was feared that SSM would lead to a "watering down of marriage".

Do you honestly think that where people elect for a religious marriage that the cleric involved dispenses some kind or marital superglue? The 'watering down' claim is, of course, just the slippery slope fallacy.

Brownie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
  • Faith evolves
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #362 on: January 06, 2017, 01:17:45 PM »
Spud, people live together and are quite committed, even without legalising their relationship.   Ask anyone who has split up with a long term partner how traumatic the break up is and you will find it is much the same as if they were married.  The difference is they don't have to pay for a divorce (which is expensive, the court fees alone cost over four grand), but  that is probably the smallest consideration at the time of breaking up.  There is little difference from what i can see.  They share property, car, lifestyle;  breaking up is very hard so don't tell me it's done lightly.

There are exceptions of course:  you do see people rushing into relationships which break up quickly but in the past, they probably would have rushed into marriage and broken up quickly, which makes everything far more difficult - especially for young people.  Let's face it, who would want to be twice divorced before the age of thirty?

One in five couples marrying nowadays have a child or children too so they have made a commitment.  ( The CofE incorporates the children into the wedding service. )

You may not like any of that - you don't have to - but don't tell us the above people treat their relationship lightly or that making public vows would make much of a difference.

During my insomniac night, I looked up marriage in the Anglican church and found it to be, on the whole, quite accommodating to most people.

This is what is said about SSM:
https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/information-for-same-sex-couples/

Well, we know the vicar cannot marry a same sex couple but, from what the above said, an unauthorised, ie informal or own-words ceremony, can be performed in church at the discretion of the minister.   In the first place, I would think a committed same sex couple, who were Christian, would choose a church that was sympathetic to gay partnerships and give the 'antis' a wide berth.

That is progress, Spud, and there will be more in the future but it takes time.  The Church does not want to alienate anyone.

Even in the Catholic Church, Pope Frances is slowly trying to alter established thinking about marriage which is upsetting the Traditionals atm, but he is at least meeting people where they are now and showing some love whereas, previously, they would have been left out in the cold.

But - none of this matters for non-believers and we cannot impose religious constraints on the non-religious, or judge them.
Let us profit by what every day and hour teaches us

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #363 on: January 06, 2017, 02:01:48 PM »
Marriage is  a relatively recent concept as far as the law goes (in Scotland, at any rate.) In times past, if a couple declared their commitment before witnesses, then to all intent and purpose, they were married - 'handfasting' still seen in a touristified form in Gretna is the last vestige of this. Only when registration of birth became a legal requirement, did a formal certificate, and therefore ceremony, of marriage become the norm. Previously, only those who could afford it would go for a formal church wedding (the hangover from when marriage was seen as sacremental), the remainder settling for a blessing by a minister or elder, either at home, where the handfasting took place, or at some other time, possibly following a normal Sunday service in the Kirk. I don't see why we now need a formal certificate of marriage in the 21st century.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14561
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #364 on: January 06, 2017, 02:05:05 PM »
I don't see why we now need a formal certificate of marriage in the 21st century.

How do you expect Daily Fail readers to identify the single mothers who are ruining the world without certification!!!

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #365 on: January 06, 2017, 02:08:24 PM »
How do you expect Daily Fail readers to identify the single mothers who are ruining the world without certification!!!

O.








LOL!
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Brownie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
  • Faith evolves
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #366 on: January 06, 2017, 06:16:15 PM »
Marriage is  a relatively recent concept as far as the law goes (in Scotland, at any rate.) In times past, if a couple declared their commitment before witnesses, then to all intent and purpose, they were married - 'handfasting' still seen in a touristified form in Gretna is the last vestige of this. Only when registration of birth became a legal requirement, did a formal certificate, and therefore ceremony, of marriage become the norm. Previously, only those who could afford it would go for a formal church wedding (the hangover from when marriage was seen as sacremental), the remainder settling for a blessing by a minister or elder, either at home, where the handfasting took place, or at some other time, possibly following a normal Sunday service in the Kirk. I don't see why we now need a formal certificate of marriage in the 21st century.

Quite right.
Let us profit by what every day and hour teaches us

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #367 on: January 06, 2017, 06:18:12 PM »
Marriage is  a relatively recent concept as far as the law goes (in Scotland, at any rate.) In times past, if a couple declared their commitment before witnesses, then to all intent and purpose, they were married
It was the same in ancient Rome, I gather. If you lived as married and said you were married, you were married.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.

Brownie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
  • Faith evolves
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #368 on: January 06, 2017, 07:05:25 PM »
I heard something fairly recently about Quakers who were, at one time, persecuted for their beliefs which is why they tended to form communities.

Their marriages were not recognised!  In other words, Quakers could not marry in the eyes of the law of the land.  So they had their own ceremony and everybody present signed a document, witnessing the couple's commitment to eachother.   Even now, those who marry in a Friends' Meeting House do the same, in remembrance of those Friends of earlier times.
I was told this by someone who has a brother and sister in law who are Quakers and whose wedding he attended - and witnessed.   I found it all quite moving.
Let us profit by what every day and hour teaches us

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #369 on: January 06, 2017, 07:24:52 PM »
It was the same in ancient Rome, I gather. If you lived as married and said you were married, you were married.






-
I've had to listen to various Kirk Session records as part of a historical review.
The Kirk Session is the 'court' consisting of the minister and elders in a local Church of Scotland Parish.
Anyhoo, many cases were attested in bygone days, and they invariably started
"That in the case of ----------- and -----------, who, having declared their marriage before witnesses and having been recorded as married by the Session Clerk....."
It seems that, though regarded by the Kirk as married, no actual service of marriage was necessary.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #370 on: January 06, 2017, 09:35:35 PM »
So we're scrapping marriage then? Yay. No more problems.

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #371 on: January 06, 2017, 09:42:31 PM »
So we're scrapping marriage then? Yay. No more problems.

Nope - just removing discrimation in terms of entitlement to legally marry, it isn't compulsory though and some in long-term relationships may decide not to bother with marriage.

Up to them really, and having removed the legal restriction for same-sex couples what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #372 on: January 06, 2017, 11:12:07 PM »
Nope - just removing discrimation in terms of entitlement to legally marry, it isn't compulsory though and some in long-term relationships may decide not to bother with marriage.

Up to them really, and having removed the legal restriction for same-sex couples what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.
Are their still problems of discrimination with that great secular institution ''Civil Partnership''?

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #373 on: January 06, 2017, 11:16:07 PM »
Are their still problems of discrimination with that great secular institution ''Civil Partnership''?

There are: ideally they should make that discrimination-free too, for those that want it. It was a fudge form the word go.

Aruntraveller

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11078
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #374 on: January 07, 2017, 09:35:11 AM »
Are their still problems of discrimination with that great secular institution ''Civil Partnership''?

Christ on  a bike. You don't just flog a dead horse do you?

You get on it, rip it's head off and still expect it to move, and then you fuck it.

As has been pointed out many, many time before - this is nothing to do with secularists not wanting equal opportunity for civil partnerships - it is that government do not regard it as a high enough priority.

Go and talk to Theresa Maybe.
Before we work on Artificial Intelligence shouldn't we address the problem of natural stupidity.