|
Post by mrtindrucvionging on Aug 11, 2006 22:42:27 GMT -5
In Sweden probably 85% - 95% of younger committed couples choose to disregard any ritual or formality of legal or cultural ceremony to 'certify' their relationship. -- at least for 5-10 years into family life. Legally, the ceremonial aspect makes very little difference. Hey, Edgar, Thanx for sharing info. about Sweden. I find it quite interesting to compare/contrast the norms from different parts of the world. I do believe the Bible advises us to live by the law of the land. In some states that means fornication, adultery and sodomy are illegal. In some states if you stay together just one night you are considered married [common law]. These laws are not enforced, obviously, and not current to what most people are doing. I have to point out that the MORAL DECAY has not been a GOOD THING. In fact, I think it is a bad thing for families and especially for CHILDREN.
The ceremonial aspect of marriage meant very little when I took marriage vows. It was an official, legal seal of what was already a committment in the heart and what was 'right':: ie:: to be together for ever and love each other always. Arriving at that point in the relationship of course took presedence over any ceremony. WE reached a point where we were together all the time anyways, because there was no other way to be, and we hated being apart. So...
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Aug 12, 2006 0:11:08 GMT -5
Moral decay, is merely a tendency toward selfishness. Materialism is probably but one manifestation of selfishness. Wanton (i spelled it incorrectly before) sexual adventures are generally another manifestation of selfishness. This points to the essence of Jesus teachings about everyday living: Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Of course, this is a proactive and selfless stance. It is not reactive, like, do to others as they are already doing to you, nor the Machiavellian perversion, do to others before they get to do to you.
Of course, this is also embodied in the first two (and most important) commandments, as Jesus mentioned, when questioned on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Aug 12, 2006 0:14:21 GMT -5
...Living together with the intent to marry is one thing, but there are so many people who don't follow that and are not TRULY committed and/or married to each other in essense in their hearts. Yes, but there also are couples who go through the marriage ceremonies and get the legal paperwork completed without having any real lifelong commitment. Pre-nups are a classic example of this contingency planning. So are such legitimate marriages any more valid than common-law marriages?
|
|
|
Post by Be honest on Aug 12, 2006 1:36:45 GMT -5
If your circumstances are more important to you than your marriage I would say you are not being truthful to yourselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2006 1:49:15 GMT -5
Moral decay, is merely a tendency toward selfishness. Materialism is probably but one manifestation of selfishness. Wanton (i spelled it incorrectly before) sexual adventures are generally another manifestation of selfishness. This points to the essence of Jesus teachings about everyday living: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Of course, this is a proactive and selfless stance. It is not reactive, like, do to others as they are already doing to you, nor the Machiavellian perversion, do to others before they get to do to you. Of course, this is also embodied in the first two (and most important) commandments, as Jesus mentioned, when questioned on this matter. I think that you hit the nail on the head with your suggestion that the major moral issue is selfishness (which is a direct conflict with the all important commandment Jesus spoke about "to love those close at hand" - Mark 12:31) Respect, admiration and ultimate interest in the welfare of each other must be the basis of relationship -- otherwise all the certificates and ceremony in the world will not give it moral legitimacy!!!
|
|
|
Post by hrl on Aug 12, 2006 18:48:09 GMT -5
Moral decay, is merely a tendency toward selfishness. Materialism is probably but one manifestation of selfishness. Wanton (i spelled it incorrectly before) sexual adventures are generally another manifestation of selfishness. This points to the essence of Jesus teachings about everyday living: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Of course, this is a proactive and selfless stance. It is not reactive, like, do to others as they are already doing to you, nor the Machiavellian perversion, do to others before they get to do to you. Of course, this is also embodied in the first two (and most important) commandments, as Jesus mentioned, when questioned on this matter. I agree with most of your post. I think moral decay is more extensive than simple selfishness, however. It's about feeding the flesh,, and lack of conscience with regards to being moral. ; putting the flesh first, above being right with God,; one can be selfish and still have morals. If we as a society have no moral boundaries or moral codes; it's anything goes; anything the flesh desires; which is not good for children or families. Thinking of children, and how our behaviour may affect them both present and future is a very proactive way to live your life.
|
|
|
Post by hrl on Aug 12, 2006 18:58:47 GMT -5
...Living together with the intent to marry is one thing, but there are so many people who don't follow that and are not TRULY committed and/or married to each other in essense in their hearts. Yes, but there also are couples who go through the marriage ceremonies and get the legal paperwork completed without having any real lifelong commitment. Pre-nups are a classic example of this contingency planning. So are such legitimate marriages any more valid than common-law marriages? That is true, too; The commitment takes place in the heart first. And it is up to the couple when they want to have sex, or live together before they make their heart commitment official with the law and witnesses. Contingency planning in an interesting concept, one which requires immense patience: ie; such and such terms must be met in order for those involved to put both feet in the water. Well how long will that take? I think that true love will wait indefinately, if needed to be with the one they really and truly love, and they will wait until all the conditions that need to be met are met. If one is unwilling to wait, the love isn't very strong. They may feel like they 'just can't wait', but still they would be willing to wait if needed. Or.....it's just quite possible that they are not willing to put both feet in the water and need more time to realise what it is they really want or what is really right and what it is that they can live with. I think I can affirmatively state that you're never really and truly 'ready' and you're never really 'sure' you are doing the right thing getting married; as only time will tell how the marriage will pan out in the long run. There is risk in getting married, but I do feel that your gut tells you if something is TRULY WRONG.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Aug 12, 2006 23:30:02 GMT -5
I agree with most of your post. I think moral decay is more extensive than simple selfishness, however. It's about feeding the flesh,, and lack of conscience with regards to being moral. ; putting the flesh first, above being right with God,; one can be selfish and still have morals. If we as a society have no moral boundaries or moral codes; it's anything goes; anything the flesh desires; which is not good for children or families. Thinking of children, and how our behaviour may affect them both present and future is a very proactive way to live your life. hrl, What is the flesh if it isn't self? How is feeding the flesh any different to simple selfishness? What is being right with God? Am I too parochial, but to me that phrase smacks of F&Wism. How does it fit into this discussion? And yes, I agree that one can have (some) morals and still be selfish. But one can't have moral decay if there aren't any morals to decay. I don't think I was making any reference to anarchic, moral-free society. And, by definition, long term stable relationships are beneficial to offspring. I don't think that was ever in question.
|
|
|
Post by meunplugged on Aug 14, 2006 7:25:49 GMT -5
I beleive there may be a biblical precedence for no ceromony before sex consider (I may be getting the participants mixed up)Jacob?? Issac?? who had a servant sent out to find him a wife , from memory it speaks that when she was brought from a far country and J? I? saw her he took her into his tent and did the deed , there didn't seem to be any stopping for a ceromony or signing paper work, The taking in to the tent and doing what ever they did (and I doubt it was to play tiddly-winks) was the sealing of the deal or the consumation of the marriage, As far as can perceive the ceremony is only an outward expression of a heart committment and the paper work a form to give it Legal standing for practical purposes
|
|
|
Post by hrl on Aug 14, 2006 10:03:09 GMT -5
[jxr]What is the flesh if it isn't self? How is feeding the flesh any different to simple selfishness?
hrl: What is "simple selfishness"?
[jxr]What is being right with God? Am I too parochial, but to me that phrase smacks of F&Wism. How does it fit into this discussion?
hrl: What is "F&Wism"?
[jxr]And yes, I agree that one can have (some) morals and still be selfish.
hrl: Agree? Wow!
[jxr]But one can't have moral decay if there aren't any morals to decay.
hrl: That so?
[jxr]I don't think I was making any reference to anarchic, moral-free society.
hrl: Did I state that you were?
[jxr]And, by definition, long term stable relationships are beneficial to offspring. I don't think that was ever in question.
hrl: Did I suggest otherewise?
jxr, you are coming across as being defensive....and there is no need for that because I am not attacking you or even challenging you. So what gives? Do we have a communication issue here? Because if there is a communication problem, this 'discussion' will be futile. If we have differing opinions about what are good morals, one cannot force the other to agree. I respect your views and am quite capable of leaving it at that. Your personal views are yours to keep; just as mine are mine.
peace and understanding are a constant pursuit.
|
|