Atheists want to perform marriages

A US atheist group wants the law changed to allow atheists to perform marriages.

Atheists for Human Rights (AFHR) issued a law suit after one of its members was denied the right to perform marriages in the state of Minnesota in April.

The member was initially approved by the county, only to be turned down three days later when an email from taxpayer services division manager Steven Grandsee said members of atheist organizations do “not meet the statutory requirement” of the state of Minnesota, according to the suit.

The atheist group’s communication director, Maria Alena Castle, said in an affidavit that online ordinations in obscure or fake religions were commonly accepted as certification by Minnesota counties.

“These included the Universal Life Church and the Church of the Latter Day Dude, a religion of the Big Lebowski,” Castle said. “Many atheists who want to be certified as marriage celebrants do not want to engage in the hypocrisy of pretending they are ministers of phony churches.”

“When the statute clearly permits recognition of a marriage celebrant whose religious credentials consist of nothing more than a $20 ‘ordination’ obtained from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the requirement is absolutely meaningless in terms of ensuring the qualifications of a marriage celebrant,”

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “Atheists want to perform marriages

  1. I don’t get it. I thought there were secular celebrants with no religious affiliation. Or is it the fact that they can’t of it under the ‘religion’ umbrella?

    Like

  2. For the life of me, I cant imagine any legitimate objection to atheists being commissioned to peform marriage ceremonies. The parties involved would have to go through exactly the same checks to make sure they were legally entitled to get hitched. and in any case, presumably in all western countries, for many years, one could simply go to a Registry Office in order to have the marriage secured. I know of no expectation in those Registry Offices that demanded that the official going through the legal processes had to be representative of some religious organization or to carry some religious belief. During my several years as a Clergyman back in the 70s, I officiated at several weddings over in Perth, and I naturally had to get pretty familiar with the rules and regulations.

    Also, in Australia, when one is registered as a Civil Celebrant, once again, no religious qualification is required. I seem to recall that the Civil Celebrant in Australia is required to refrain from any religious wording in the actual ceremony. Dont know if that is still the rule. Although, it might be pointed out that passages from Scripture may legitimately be read, such as Paul’s words on Love. Also, since rarely would any official of the appropriate Government department be actually present at a wedding presided over by one of the Civil Celebrants, they could most likely get away with any wording they wanted to include.

    In older times, prior to the adoption of Religious ceremonies as previously discussed, it was the parents who presided over the celebration of weddings, and no obligations were incumbent on them to include any particular religious wording.
    Rian.

    Like

  3. I bet most of you do not realise that a Christian marriage is taken very seriously by Almighty God…..”What God has joined together let no man pull asunder”.

    Trivialize marriage all you like, but there will be consequences, both here on earth and in Heaven. Just wait and see……

    Like

    • I agree Mon. That’s why it annoys me that non-Christians often get married in churches because they like the surroundings to take nice photos. And I wonder why churches agree to marry non-believers. It seems out of whack to me.

      Like

      • You fail to appreciate that “Stonehenge” in it,s time was just another man made place of importance as equal to it,s people as any modern building erected to gain riches from the general population .

        All the so called places or time are nothing but mist of a feeble mind .
        And that includes those in your religion

        Like

      • And do you really have a point AT? What does this have to do with the topic?

        Stonehenge is just a collection of stones that once made up some sort of temple. Buildings are just buildings. Everyone knows that mate. A church is the people, not the building!!!!!!

        Like

      • And do you really have a point AT? What does this have to do with the topic?
        I agree Mon. That’s why it annoys me that non-Christians often get married in churches because they like the surroundings to take nice photos. And I wonder why churches agree to marry non-believers. It seems out of whack to me.

        Stonehenge is just a collection of stones that once made up some sort of temple. Buildings are just buildings. Everyone knows that mate. A church is the people, not the building!!!!!!
        MMMMM !!
        Consistency Bryan !!
        And the lack of it Bryan !!

        That’s not my idea of a good party AT. And your point, if you have one, once again escapes me.
        And do you really have a point AT? What does this have to do with the topic?
        Flip flop as the penny drops

        Like

      • Exactly, That’s why non-Christians like yourself don’t realise the church is more than a pretty building. Yes that annoys me. Do you still fail to comprehend what I’ve said. Perhaps Read it again.

        Like

    • Hi Mon,
      your point there is entirely dependent on the validity of the argument that the God actually HAS joined the two together. I dont think that the fact of having a church wedding makes that an absolute guarantee.

      The whole thing is once again a matter of faith, and cannot be proven until or unless a future life in an orthodox Christian heaven eventuates.
      Rian.

      Like

      • Bryan,
        I think I understand perfectly what Mon is saying there. It is a standard teaching of the Christian Church that a Church wedding with vows before God indissolubly link the married pair together. But all sorts of differing views are held in the multiplicity of denominations.

        Like all other doctrines or teachings of the church, it is a matter of faith.

        In my days as a minister, I was ordained in a Gnostic Denomination that took teachings like this one as being symbolic rather than literal. At the time, I was personally recently divorced.

        In any case, I cant recall any Biblical verse that actually threatens dire consequences for anyone who fails in their marriage. There’s no mention in the Decalogue, or in any of the 613 Commandments of the law. I am of courser quite familiar with the Gospel verses attributed to Jesus.

        However, I can completely understand the viewpoint of a Christian who thinks otherwise.

        I would not dispute the possibility that I personally was a strange minister. Monica will understand this pretty well.
        Cheers,Rian.

        Like

      • Yes Rian. I think it’s the faith thing you have trouble with. It limits your understanding.

        A few verses from the Bible

        Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate (Mark).

        And Jesus appears to say that divorce is allowed only if adultery has occurred: “Whoever divorces a wife, except for sexual indecency, and remarries, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

        Beyond what Jesus says, Paul also allows divorce. He permits it for abandonment by a nonbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-15). Many theologians add this as a second ground for divorce

        Like

      • Bryan,
        Problem is not just lack of understanding of faith on my part. I just dont share the Christian confidence about faith. I have no problems with faith maintained by others. I’m simply not obliged to agree with them.

        And of course an essential part of the whole issue is that I dont share a belief that the Bible is verbally accurate and to be described as the literal Word of God.

        I think I am being quite logical anyway, as I state that the proof of it all will only be determined in an afterlife condition. We cant know it all here and now. Any claims of certainty here and now are based of course on faith.

        Cheers Rian.

        Like

    • “Non-Christians often get married in churches because they like the surroundings to take nice photos.”
      I’m afraid so. It’s because tradition, not Christianity, is important to them. Tradition can be very strong, as we see in the wearing of the burqa.
      Why are so many churches going along with it?

      Like

      • Hi Mon,
        further on your posting there, I will contact you off-line with some more comments or queries.
        Love Rian.

        Like

  4. I have a lot I could say when it comes to God’s involvement in my marriage, Rian.

    But it’s very painful to drag all that up again, and I seem to lack the courage to do so today. All I will say is that I have no doubt whatsoever that my marriage is God-ordained, and any attempt in the past on my part (and there have been a few), to walk out of my marriage, has always been met with God’s disapproval. So therefore, if I chose to disregard and disobey God’s plans for my marriage, well then it stands to reason that there would be consequences for my hardness of heart. And I am not just talking about obeying God’s written word, the Bible, here. I am talking about God directly intervening in my marriage. So believe me, my knees still knock when I think on it.

    You may like to have a read of this excellent teaching:

    Putting Biblical Marriage Asunder: Is It Possible?
    by Edward Ridenour

    http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/putting-biblical-marriage-asunder-is-it.html

    Like

    • You’re heart wasn’t so hard Monica, that you didn’t listen to God with it. I hope you have taken the time to forgive yourself. We have to forgive ourselves as well.

      Like

    • Thanks for that Mon,
      Very good coverage of the full-on Evangelical interpretation of the Biblical material. I shall be filing a copy in my notes.

      I guess I’d really like to know what is the precise definition of marriage in the view of Edward Ridenour. Would he be intending any sort of wedding ceremony to be the foundation of it? And that means whether the ceremony be of the ancient variety centred in the family, or in Church or Registry office or what?

      Perhaps he is intending as well, that the very first act of sex ever engaged in between individuals represents the necessary marriage if no public attestation is engaged in. And of course, just what conditions need to be fulfilled for the guarantee that the God has joined the pair together in the first place. Are there any circumstances he would allow that would not have such involvement of the deity? Perhaps either party being underage, and therefore engaged in an invalid marriage? But that comes up against the difficulty wherein different cultures or times have changed such age of consent. Does the God adjust his approval for the match based on the human law?

      A major sticking point for me in all this, is still the concept with the whole of the Bible being taken literally, that odd verses from here there and anywhere can be extracted and taken together to form a coherent principle. Being strongly against the principle of Supersessionism, I dont believe in combining Old and New Testaments into one book. In principle, I endeavour never to use those terms unless having to make my meaning clear, preferring to speak instead of the Jewish Scripture and the Christian Testament.

      Again, thanks for that Mon,

      Cheers, Rian.

      Like

      • hI Lee,
        Thanks for that. Now I do have some more points to make and related questions.

        I would want to know just how your bloke Ridenour (or you yourself) specifically defines a Christian for the purpose of the explanation. As different churches and ‘Christian’ communions in our history have designated varying qualifications.

        >>>>>This is why I have declared before, “when two Christians engage in sexual intimacy, they are, before God, either married or committing fornication.”>>>>>

        Therefore, what about when two NON-Christians engage in sexual intimacy?
        Does this mean then, that two non-Christians engaging in sexual intimacy, are in exactly the same situation as Christians who engage in any of the forbidden sexual acts? In that case, why does he say there that ‘when two Christians…”? Oh and of course, are two NON-Christians ‘joined together by God’ that first time they have sex?

        What exactly is to be defined as ‘sexual intimacy’? Talking to the other about one’s personal sexual desire? Kissing or cuddling? Does it just have to be ANY sort of contact with the body whether clothed, unclothed or partly clothed of the other party? Sounds pretty awkward for young dating partners today who may legitimately and sensibly chop and change their relationships as they grow in maturity, doesnt it? To declare ‘LOVE’ to another? Clearly one’s official marriage or one’s actual wedding ceremony or the vows taken, or even the blessing of a priest or minister counts for absolutely nothing to God in this concept.

        In the Biblical situations of course, the customs of the times were different, and forbidden actions then may not appear to be wrong now. (as well as vice versa). Recall that among the Jews, marriages were commonly ‘arranged’. Prostitution was not forbidden. Girls and boys got married at an age considered improper today. And sex for ANY male with any unmarried or non-betrothed female was not considered Adultery,

        Clearly for ANY young unmarried persons, that warning given in Matt 5.28 simply doesnt apply. As pointed out by various Christian writers, it specifically concerns men who look on married or betrothed women with lust.

        (The only exception was of course if the female happened to be daughter of a priest. She would be burnt to death, but I cant recall any sanction against the male in such a case.) Actually of course, the Ten Commandments and the rest of the 613 commandments of the Law, were designed and delivered specifically for the Israelites/Jews, but not for any other race at the time.

        What about in the case of younger persons who are below the age of consent for marriage? Does your God take any notice of the laws of the land? Or does ‘He’ say that the relationship is joined by HIm at ANY age of the parties? Are the pair joined together by God if they are knowingly or unknowingly improperly related?

        Yep, I find a lot of problems in the matter. It appears too simplistic.
        Rian.

        Like

      • “I would want to know just how your bloke Ridenour (or you yourself) specifically defines a Christian for the purpose of the explanation. As different churches and ‘Christian’ communions in our history have designated varying qualifications.”
        Hi Rian,

        Well, since I do regard Mr. Ridenour’s teaching as very insightful and biblical, I will proudly lay claim to “your bloke Ridenour” comment. Many of your questions are clearly answered in Ridenour’s articles and/or book.

        My definition of a Christian is what the Bible defines as one who can rightfully claim that title. It is very clearly written that certain attributes will be evidenced, outwardly and inwardly: Inwardly, one will become a new creation. They will be born again by regeneration, which occurs through the transformation wrought by the working of God’s Holy Spirit. All made possible by the redemption of Christ. It will produce a changed life with an acquired spiritual knowledge of Christ and a desire to seek Him and obey His word. When this inward change takes place, it is unmistakable and obvious to the believer. It is their personal testimony. Outwardly, there will be a lifelong effort to love the brethren, a giving heart to those in need, a sacrificial holy life, which includes a separation from many worldly persuits, entertainments and fleshly lusts, as well as other biblical dictates. There will be a readiness to testify of Christ and the hope they possess. There is more, but this is in a nutshell.

        “>>>>>This is why I have declared before, “when two Christians engage in sexual intimacy, they are, before God, either married or committing fornication.”>>>>>”
        Rideour offers pure clarification in his articles what is meant by this statement. He makes it very clear that reading just one article with a statement like this will require the reader to read more for an understanding of his theology of marriage to understand particlular statements he may make in his articles. When this is done, you will understand them.

        “Therefore, what about when two NON-Christians engage in sexual intimacy? Does this mean then, that two non-Christians engaging in sexual intimacy, are in exactly the same situation as Christians who engage in any of the forbidden sexual acts? In that case, why does he say there that ‘when two Christians…”? Oh and of course, are two NON-Christians ‘joined together by God’ that first time they have sex?”

        According to Ridenour, they are the same in acts of sexual intimacy. Non-Christians marry (are joined together) and commit sexual sins of fornication, such as, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, and so forth, the same as Christians. The end result can’t be helped, because it is “built into the creation of man,” he says. Paul in Corinthians 5:9,10 revealed this truth when telling congregants to have no company with believing fornicators, “yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world…” So the distiction between the two is acknowledged and pointed to. The difference between the Christian and NON-C, as Ridenour declares, is the connection that Christians have to Christ – being members of His body, which the NON-C is not. This is fully explained in his article “MARRIAGE: A Christian Exclusive (http://blogs.christianpost.com/marriage/marriage-a-christian-exclusive-6405/).

        “What exactly is to be defined as ‘sexual intimacy’? Talking to the other about one’s personal sexual desire? Kissing or cuddling? Does it just have to be ANY sort of contact with the body whether clothed, unclothed or partly clothed of the other party? Sounds pretty awkward for young dating partners today who may legitimately and sensibly chop and change their relationships as they grow in maturity, doesnt it? To declare ‘LOVE’ to another?”

        Ridenour doesn’t use this illustration, but somewhat alludes to it in his book. If you were in a park or wherever and you saw two men passionately embracing and kissing, what would be the logical conclusion of these two men sexually? I believe it is fair to say, they would be deemed to be homosexuals. Two male sexes being intimate in a physical way as is common between two of the opposite sex. To engage in such a way has no purpose, but to arouse or be aroused for sexual gratification, as well as, for “a sexual knowledge” of the other person. So, where is the line drawn with God? If we recognise that two of the same sex are being sexually intimate and know this to be homosexual by nature, as well as fornication biblically (violation of marriage), what might be the conclusion of two of the same sex doing this, biblically? I don’t know exactly where God draws the line, but if that line is crossed, I believe as Ridenour, there is no return. As he states, “if it is between two that are qualified to do it, it is marriage. If unqualified it is fornication.” And he defines the ramifications/conditions that come with fornication to the believer in Christ. Knowing the severe outcome, should any real Christian be so foolish to not fear the risk flirting with where the line might be.

        I will also submit: what happens in our cultural law to a man who just touches a minor female or male in a sexual way, whether they are clothed or not? Molestation! If kissing and touching has no significance, why such a harsh law against it for minors. Touch any grown woman or man sexually and see the response. It’s deemed sexual harassment. Walk in on an undressed person of different ages and observe the parts of their body they immediately cover up. If man deems seuxality to be sacred and important, can we suppose that the Creater of man is less sensative? “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:1,2). In Genesis it said that King Abimelech observed Abraham and Sarah in the field sporting. In this, he deduced that they were more than just brother and sister.

        ”Clearly one’s official marriage or one’s actual wedding ceremony or the vows taken, or even the blessing of a priest or minister counts for absolutely nothing to God in this concept.”

        Vows, priest or ministerial officiations, ceremonies, witnesses are all addressed in a number of his articles. Two that I know of that are to the point are: “Marriage: A Vow Won’t Make It” and “Marriage: The Emporer Has No Clothes.”

        Basically, the answer is they don’t, except for vows. But even then, they must be put in proper perspective with marriage. As Ridenour says, “One cannot commit adultery (fornication) against a vow.” “Adultery is a sexual violation against an original sexual encounter.” He also implies that many who make the vow are unqualified to declare such a vow, because of their past sexual experiences. All his articles are listed on his website http://www.mbgod.com.

        “In the Biblical situations of course, the customs of the times were different, and forbidden actions then may not appear to be wrong now. (as well as vice versa). Recall that among the Jews, marriages were commonly ‘arranged’. Prostitution was not forbidden. Girls and boys got married at an age considered improper today. And sex for ANY male with any unmarried or non-betrothed female was not considered Adultery,”

        Do you believe that the God who created man and woman and regulates their joining, as well and as judges it, is beholden to dictates of cultural customs or men’s fancies? Men are sinners. Mens customs lead to Noah and the flood – to Sodom and Ghomorah. As God said to Job, “Where were you when I…” Jeremiah said, “Oh Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (10:23); There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death”(Proverbs 16:25). So, do we follow man’s customs or God’s word? As Ridenour says, “Men do not define marriage, but God. If men define it, it is no longer sacred.” Not all things that were allowed or practiced by the Jew were necessarily approved of by God, though he may have tolerated it. Observe what Jesus said to the Pharisees concerning the Bill of Divorcement given by Moses.

        “Clearly for ANY young unmarried persons, that warning given in Matt 5.28 simply doesnt apply. As pointed out by various Christian writers, it specifically concerns men who look on married or betrothed women with lust.”

        Many Christian writers and scholars define marriage too. But, according to Ridenour, his argument is, and I concur, that their marriage definitions are secular and not biblical. So, what do these writers know about this verse of Scripture? They may be right, but then again they may not.

        “What about in the case of younger persons who are below the age of consent for marriage?”

        I can’t imagine a certain age determined by man as relevant, but rather the age of comprehension and physical capability. And I believe the comprehension of what makes a marriage biblically can be acquired and understood before the age of sexual activity. Also, as Mr. Ridenour points out in his book, regarding 1Cor. 7:36, that a man espoused to a virgin is not to take her sexually until she “pass the flower of her age.” Once she has physically passed into the age of child bearing, she is of age for marriage (sexual intimacy). Maybe not by cultural law, but by the creation of God, as a male and female, they would be accountable.

        “Does your God take any notice of the laws of the land? Or does ‘He’ say that the relationship is joined by HIm at ANY age of the parties? Are the pair joined together by God if they are knowingly or unknowingly improperly related?”

        The laws of the any land (government) have nothing to do with “marriage by God,” what ever law you are referring to. I know of none other than not having more than one government marriage license at a time. “Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers…” My God, seen in the person of Jesus Christ, does not regard the law of man in marriage, because as Ridenour says, “marriage is God’s creation not man’s. “He is the designer, ruler, and judge over, possessing consequences (Hebrews 13:4). Any law established by man can never supersede nor alter it” (BIBLICAL MARRIAGE: A Sacred Law).

        Mr. Ridenour advocates, anytime a male and female are sexually intimate, regardless of familial connections, they are married. “The marriage, however, will be either legitimate or illegitimate.” If you read “The Honor of Biblical Marriage,” you should know what the difference is between the two.

        “Yep, I find a lot of problems in the matter. It appears too simplistic.”

        Yes, it is simple, yet it is profound, demanding and Godly. There is nothing more simplistic, undisciplined and rediculous than secular marriage and all the nonsense that is associated with it. This is the marriage the Christian church teaches and adheres to and is not at all biblical. In my view Mr. Ridenour validates that idea completely. I can’t imagine after reading all that he has penned, both in his book and in all his articles, that anyone could refer to this teaching as simplistic. Yep, I find a lot of problems with the marriage of our culture, moreso now than ever. It appears very sinful and carnal.

        Lee

        Like

      • Lee.
        Thanks for. Your explanation of Mr Ridenour’s viewpoint was interesting.
        When I read or hear of views put forward by Christians, I’m most interested to get to the ultimate nitty gritty of their personal faith. So I hope you will pardon my questioning here.

        You offered a particular definition of what it means to be a Christian. So is it strictly your view that those Bible declarations absolutely condemn all others to Hell? In your Bible reading do you believe that Hell is everlasting torment, or simply separation from the God for all eternity? In other words do ALL non-Christians (with your definitions) in the world finish in Hell? What about the condition of Catholics during the old world order prior to the Protestant Reformation for many centuries? – those days when few could read, and an Evangelical approach was simply not promoted by the Church?

        Then what about babies and small children, – do they absolutely need to be baptised, as St Augustine maintained? Do you absolutely hold that a person’s status before the God can be detected by other Christians? What about the way that millions of Americans were certain sure some years back the Jimmy Baaker and Jimmy Swaggert and other similar, were well and truly saved, only to come a cropper? In the long run, if -as the Calvinists maintain, only God knows about any individual person, just how do you offer ANY spiritual consolation to someone who has lost a loved one?

        And finally, do you believe in a young or old Earth and Universe? As you must realize, mine is a totally different understanding of the God and of Eternity, as well as the spiritual nature and goals of mankind..
        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • Being in Christ, connected to Him as a member of His body is essential for anyone to be with Him, where He is when departed from this flesh. He is at the right hand of the Father. Nothing evil will enter into heaven. There is only one other place and that place is opposite the place of life. It is the place of death (hell). Who is in Christ? I cannot know other than by their fruits and whether my spirit bears witness to theirs. Yet, Christ knows. For “He knows them that are His. Let everyone that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”

        Hell is torment and torment is existing devoid of God’s Spirit. No man ever experiences this torment on earth, because God’s Spirit is always here. Man was designed to need His presence for peace and comfort. Remove Him and there is chaos and turmoil and suffering. My soul was without peace and comfort until God’s Holy Spirit entered. According to the Bible there is an unquenchable fire and worm that never dies. However, I believe that no man on earth has experienced this fire or worm, either. They are in the next life which is not like unto this earthly world. Can we know exactly what those torments will consist of? Not while alive here. We just have to believe that Christ and His parable of the rich man and Lazarus gave us a sobering glimpse of a reality that exists beyond this life.

        I don’t know what was or wasn’t at that time of centuries past. God will have to judge. I am sure they will be judged based upon what they had, as Paul said “with the law, without the law.” I don’t know how God worked with them in their day to reveal Himself. They may have had experiences of truth through Christ that this generation would never experience, because of having the Word of God available and the ability to read it or evangelized. I definitely do not believe Catholic doctrines reflect the truth of the Scriptures for true salvation and a right walk before our Lord.

        Baptism is an individual decision accompanied with fruits of repentance, to be done when possible “See here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized.” It is an outward expression of their faith in the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit. This cannot be accomplished when as a baby, but at an age of understanding of what it represents.

        I believe men can begin a good race, only to stumble along the way. To many believers look to men within their walk with God for their completeness, instead of seeking through the channels given to them by the Lord. I saw too much worldliness in the Bakers. I witnessed too much pride in the ministerial administration of Jimmy Swaggart. I see too much worldliness and God’s word being disobeyed in the Christian church today, like in those ministries. There is too much compromise of what the Bible teaches. When disobeyed or compromised, reprobation becomes the result. There is much reprobation and sin evident in the Christian church today. Truly, God will be the ultimate one to judge. As far as those who were certain of these men, most everyone in the church is absolutely certain they know what biblical marriage is, also.

        I don’t give spiritual consolation. If they want to talk about the spiritual, I let them tell me concerning the death of their loved one.

        I believe in a young earth.

        Lee

        Like

    • I’d still appreciate it if one of our resident Christians could define for me about the circumstances in which a marriage is NOT a joining together by God. And I want a comprehensive list to that. Presumably it would include a marriage physically and mentally forced on to the parties. As well, when a marriage that involves one or both minors in age. (And as I asked earlier, what about the fact that the age of consent to marriage has varied from time to time. Does the God take notice of manmade laws about such things?) Does it include marriages that take place between persons who are not Christians? Persons who are joined in the Registry Office? Those who hold a mental reserve in their minds when making the appropriate vows, etc etc.

      Rian.

      Like

  5. I wonder if there is a difference between how marriages fare with God’s blessing and those without.

    I have to just say a thank you for you prayers for my sister recently. She’s had a couple of miracles happen for her and on speaking to her, I can hear in her voice she is going to heal. I so believe in the power of prayer and I panic without it so I’m grateful Bryan for your patience and prayers on your blog.

    Like

  6. Two exerpts from “Christianity Today
    What God Teaches Us About Broken Marriage Vows ”

    I had often noted God’s patient forgiveness and covenant renewal in Hosea, but God’s description of his own divorce with the northern kingdom of Israel shocked me. I had unquestioningly internalized the phrase “the sin of divorce.” Regardless of how I interpreted the debate about Jesus’ words on the topic, if God himself had experienced this unfaithfulness, I needed to rethink my understanding of sin and divorce.

    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Similarly, the litmus test for covenant faithfulness in marriage should not just be about whether or not someone got divorced (even if they did “everything but”), but about how we steward our marriages and make daily attempts to model God’s faithfulness to our spouses.

    God calls us to covenant faithfulness. We need to mourn the sins we commit when we fail to keep our vows to our spouses before we lament the “sin of divorce.” Upholding and honoring marriage is not going to be accomplished by shaming and opposing divorce as much as it is by our gracious and firm commitment to upholding wedding-day vows of love, nurture, care, and faithfulness. We are called to consider covenant faithfulness long before we consider divorce, and we are called to grace in the tragic event that divorce does happen.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/february/what-god-teaches-us-about-broken-marriage-vows.html?paging=off

    Like

  7. Bryan
    What you fail to realize there is no such thing as a place or time that has any importance to any supposed entity .
    Religious sites are only man made crap spin .
    Without them religions are nothing .
    Your words :-
    Stonehenge is just a collection of stones that once made up some sort of temple .
    My words :-
    No religiose site or specific time currently has any more importance than those of that built “STONEHENGE”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s