|
wedding
Jun 22, 2006 1:54:52 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 22, 2006 1:54:52 GMT 10
biblically.... Church wedding or civil wedding? Church wedding, ang nagkakasal is priest..Tao lang din... Kapag civil, ang lawyer ang nagkakasal... Same na tao lang din... how about garden wedding, mga christians, yung iba garden wedding na ang nagkakasal is yung pastor nila.... So biblically, may nakasulat ba about wedding?
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 22, 2006 15:52:47 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 22, 2006 15:52:47 GMT 10
tnx lins... at least dito sya sa sharing my beliefs....
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 22, 2006 16:06:44 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 22, 2006 16:06:44 GMT 10
biblically.... Church wedding or civil wedding? Church wedding, ang nagkakasal is priest..Tao lang din... Kapag civil, ang lawyer ang nagkakasal... Same na tao lang din... how about garden wedding, mga christians, yung iba garden wedding na ang nagkakasal is yung pastor nila.... So biblically, may nakasulat ba about wedding? sis hala antayin si migoy, ruth at supremo, asan na si kuya banshik at jackgubat namaaaan daming ma s-share kaya nila konting sagot.. mas mataas ang civil wedding kahit nung old testament time written consents were in effect as legal and binding. at magka problema man ang kikilalanin ng gobyerno ay mga legal documents , kaya nga inuuna ang license po...
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 22, 2006 16:11:24 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 22, 2006 16:11:24 GMT 10
ganda ng mga tanong ni hotty ah sa totoo lang
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 22, 2006 22:03:22 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 22, 2006 22:03:22 GMT 10
nung kinasal si ruth at boaz during Old Testament times...wala naman presence ng priest o pastor...
but then again most of the time, marriage is symbolic of Jesus (as the groom) and the church (as the bride)...
di naman sinabi na ikasal sa church...ang sabi sa NT, marriage is a symbol of the union of the church with Christ...
yan lang muna...basa basa muna ako...
isa pa palang advantage ng church wedding is that it is symbolic of the union of 2 people being protected by society at large...kasi may malaking announcement yan...kaya yung mga dumadalo sa kasal lalo na at church wedding..they are supposedly witnesses and protector ng sanctity ng marriage...
sa civil wedding, judge lang at probably 2 pairs of witnesses
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 1:42:42 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 23, 2006 1:42:42 GMT 10
thanks Ruth.... Supporting verse nga mga guys....
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 1:54:45 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 23, 2006 1:54:45 GMT 10
marriage is a legal institution which provides for the legality of the union, we need a license from the civil registry, at ang church yun ang i se secure, now how can one prove that he is legally married? it is not by the cermony po, it is by the license and the marriage certificate na nakukuha sa munisipyo
at ito po ay may license number. na may kopya ng buong pilipinas na si mr x ay legally married kay mrs x.. kaya yung 2 witnesses plus yung marriage license and marriage certificate plus yung marriage vows sa civil wedding ay napaka binding and legal nun
minsan ang mayor ang nagkakasal, at sa barko naman kung walang minister, yung captain ang next in rank to perform the marriage, that is according to law. at kapag nandyan na ang pinirmahang mga marriage documents, wala nang mag a against dyan, legal and binding na yan.
ang 2 witness ay binding, at ito po ay legal procedure which is honored by the law of the land, God also admonished respect and obedience to the law of the land.
kaya nga karaniwan ang biruan marriage is a piece of paper daw.. ahehe not ceremony but a piece of paper, yun ang popular quote, which means in the present day , the foundation of marriage first is God then the couple to be, the minister, the two witnesses and the license and marriage certificate and that would be life time in effect. kailangan 2 po ang witnesses. hehe
About church wedding, ceremony na lang po yun, dahil kung kasal ka na sa civil kahit walang ceremony kasal ka na kahit anong mangyari at kahit saang courtroom ka pa makarating.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 12:06:14 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 23, 2006 12:06:14 GMT 10
Hi Hotty,
Sa ating mga Katoliko, marriage is not just a physical union of man and wife but a "sacred union" wherein God would give grace to the couple who exhcanged their vows.
"Sacred" kaya kailiangan ng pari para mag-officiate to ensure the criteria and the condition for a "true marraige" is present. But we have to realize that it is the Groom and the Bride who are actually exchanging vows and fulfilling the sacrament of Marriage. The priest is there to ensure that "grace" be received by the couple.
Ruth,
The analogy you made was unfair. Ruth and Boaz was under the old law. But even at that time there was "tradition" wherein God has given man to ensure the "sacred" nature of union between man and wife.
Hindi din ibig sabihin na kapag wala verbatim na "church wedding" na dapat mag-conclude na hindi ito ang sinabi ni Jesus Christ.
If the Church serves as a "sacred place and venue" and since marriage is a "sacred" union, it is only but rational and logical that a sacred union be held in a sacred venue as much as possible.
FYI. HIndi din ito "symbolic" union dahil sinabi ni Jesus that marriage is a sacred union between man and wife...till death do us part
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 12:44:15 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 23, 2006 12:44:15 GMT 10
exactly kuya B. it was a tradition that binds men and women to be wed in a church by a priest or a pastor. tradition yun at hindi law.
kapag walang sinabi 'verbatim' na a man and woman must be married in front of a priest/pastor...ay hindi na binding ang civil wedding.
the church that Christ was referring to is not a building...but the Holy Spirit that resides in the human heart.
ilang beses nasabi sa Bible that the Church (as the bride) is waiting for its groom (Christ)...iyan ang dahilan kung bakit ang marriage ay naging sacred..
ang sinasabi kong symbolic union...is the union of the Church and Christ...pagdating ng paghuhukom (nasa Revelations po yan)...that after the rapture of the Church...the Church will be joined with Christ.
I agree it is a sacred union between man and wife....at yung binitawang mga salita ni Christo is what makes it sacred...not ceremony...not tradition...He is the one that dispenses Grace for the couple...He is the one that protects its sacredness...and it is also the duty of the couple to protect it. Dahil if they commit adultery its like they are also commiting adultery against the Church.
wala namang sinabing masama magkaron ng ceremony or tradition...because it also holds society to be accountable to the protection of the sanctity of marriage vows...
but it does not mean that w/o a ceremony/tradition it would be less sacred.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 14:33:55 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 23, 2006 14:33:55 GMT 10
wahehehe! hayan at nagtalo na naman sa pagiging katoliko kristiyano sa wedding... Kapag ba lawyer, mayor o kung sino ay hindi sagrado? kapag pari sagrado? Alam ko sagrado lang kasi nasa church kinasal... Parang katulad sa pagdadasal.. Kapag nagdasal ka sa church, sagrado ka... Pero kapag nagdasal ka sa labas, di sagrado ang place pero tanggap ni LORD lahat ng panalangin as long as may sincereness sa puso ng bawat nagdarasal.... Kahit sa civil o church pa yan kung nandun ang sincereness ng dalwang couple sa marriage, at nandun ang sincereness sa binding na binigay ni LORD, i guess may bisa ang pagkakasal at pagsasama ng dalwang tao...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 16:43:16 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 23, 2006 16:43:16 GMT 10
ahehehhe...kelangan yata magopen ng bagong thread about CHURCH...ano ba ang Church? building ba ito? grupo ng tao? what makes it sacred? why should it exist? what is God's plan for the Church? should we pledge our allegiance to God or to a CHURCH?
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 16:55:36 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 23, 2006 16:55:36 GMT 10
On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." {John 2:1-5 RSV}
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 16:56:26 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 23, 2006 16:56:26 GMT 10
The occasion was a wedding, an Eastern wedding. Eastern weddings are very different from Western affairs. In Western weddings the bride is the prominent figure. When she enters, clad in all her glory, the whole congregation stands and the organ thunders, "Here comes the bride; fair, fat and wide! " or whatever it is, and every eye is focused on her. But in Eastern weddings it is the groom that is prominent. He is the featured one; the bride merely shows up for the wedding. (She is like the bridegroom in a Western wedding -- a sort of necessary evil.)
Not only is the groom the featured person, but he also pays for the whole affair! Some of those weddings went on for two or three days -- some for as long as a week -- with all the relatives of both sides of the family joining together for a big celebration. This is the kind of wedding John is talking about here. (By the way, I think it is a very good idea to have the bridegroom pay for everything.)
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 16:58:12 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 23, 2006 16:58:12 GMT 10
in this Wedding at CANA...it was a festive occasion...the groom paid for everything...
however...in some weddings na nabanggit sa Bible...hindi laging ganito ka-festive (festivities di naman pinagbawal ng Dyos...in fact umatend pa sya sa isa sa mga ito...
Sabi sa Ecclessiates...ther is a time to mourn and a time to dance...
a wedding is a joyous, festive occasion, people are dancing...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 17:15:49 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 23, 2006 17:15:49 GMT 10
Then he said, "May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence. And now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning."
So she lay at his feet until morning and rose before one could recognize another; and he said, "Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor." Again he said, "Give me the cloak that is on you and hold it." So she held it, and he measured six measures of barley and laid it on her. Then she went into the city.
And it happened in the middle of the night that the man was startled and bent forward; and behold, a woman was lying at his feet. And he said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth, your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative." Then he said, "May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence. And now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning."
This is the heart language of those who are
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 17:16:42 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 23, 2006 17:16:42 GMT 10
Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz spoke was passing by, so he said, "Turn aside, friend, sit down here." And he turned aside and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, "Sit down here." So they sat down. Then he said to the closest relative, "Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, has to sell the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech. So I thought to inform you, saying, 'Buy it before those who are sitting here, and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if not, tell me that I may know; for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am after you.'" And he said, "I will redeem it." Then Boaz said, "On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the deceased, in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance." And the closest relative said, "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I jeopardize my own inheritance. Redeem it for yourself; you may have my right of redemption, for I cannot redeem it."
Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning the redemption and the exchange of land to confirm any matter: a man removed his sandal and gave it to another; and this was the manner of attestation in Israel. So the closest relative said to Boaz, "Buy it for yourself." And he removed his sandal. Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You are witnesses today that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. Moreover, I have acquired Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased may not be cut off from his brothers or from the court of his birthplace; you are witnesses today." And all the people who were in the court, and the elders, said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of Israel; and may you achieve wealth in Ephrathah and become famous in Bethlehem. Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah, through the offspring which the LORD shall give you by this young woman."
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 23, 2006 17:17:49 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 23, 2006 17:17:49 GMT 10
We can find ourselves longing for the Lord and the day to come when the church will be a bride fit for him. A wedding of godly people is inspiring.
But weddings can also be tawdry, can't they? Consider a shallow, phony wedding in which the guests listen to vows while thinking about former spouses, abandoned children, and prenuptial negotiations. If a wedding is self-centered, all show and no heart, it can have exactly the opposite response of that engendered by a beautiful wedding. It can put everybody off by its hypocrisy. The wedding that Boaz and Ruth hope for, which is announced and which essentially takes place as Boaz receives the blessing of the elders of his city, is a beautiful wedding. But what makes it beautiful instead of tawdry? What makes the announcement of Ruth's and Boaz' relationship lead the men and the women of their city to praise God? What lights the fires of faith so that the godliness of these two envelopes their neighbors and friends?
Observers glorify God because of the choices Ruth and Boaz made in private and in public. Most of us can look salty, if you will, on occasions when we're with other Christians in a Christian environment, say at a Christian retreat, a Bible study, or a church service. We can sing the songs with gusto, pray with our heads bowed and wish our friends well.
What stands out about Ruth and Boaz is that in private, in the dark, when no one else sees them, they trust God. They don't engage in shortcuts and they don't serve themselves when no one else is looking. The fact is, whatever happens in private eventually comes out. Who you are in private is who people will ultimately regard you to be. Nothing really stays secret. We're given an opportunity to see this man and this woman when no one else is looking except God, and we see that they are righteous people.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 24, 2006 1:38:41 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 24, 2006 1:38:41 GMT 10
ahehehhe...kelangan yata magopen ng bagong thread about CHURCH...ano ba ang Church? building ba ito? grupo ng tao? what makes it sacred? why should it exist? what is God's plan for the Church? should we pledge our allegiance to God or to a CHURCH? ewan ko sis... tanong mo kay kuyang...
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 24, 2006 1:47:26 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 24, 2006 1:47:26 GMT 10
genesis 2:23-25 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Walang statement si LOrd diyan ng kasal... kasi HE alone bind eve and adam as husband and wife.... E ang pari ba Diyos para masabing sagrado ang kasal?
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 25, 2006 15:48:55 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 25, 2006 15:48:55 GMT 10
si Kuya B nawawala....
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 11:55:05 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 26, 2006 11:55:05 GMT 10
Yours Ruth: "exactly kuya B. it was a tradition that binds men and women to be wed in a church by a priest or a pastor. tradition yun at hindi law."
Hi Ruth,
1. Who ever said that "Tradition" is not considered "Law"?
2. Who ever said that Pastors (in your case) or Church Heirarchy can not impose guidelines and policies within the Church?
Hi Hotty,
Matt 19:4-7 also inlcudes "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder".
The word "kasal" may be missing but it is clear that the sacrament of Matrimony (Marriage) between man and wife is "Sacred". We could not take out the "Sanctity" of marriage because the physical union and act (marital act/sexual union) has a moral dimension. This is the reason why "sex" is considered holy (not dirty as some people misinterpret it) and why there are moral laws prescribed concering sex.
Gaya ng Nature of Man, lahat ng actions ng tao ay may moral dimension. Dahil dito, nararapat din na pagaralan ang nature ng Matrimony or marriage. It is important to know the purpose why God granted this special grace to man and the purpose and meaning of this special grace (to Catholics a Sacrament).
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 11:58:37 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 26, 2006 11:58:37 GMT 10
Hi Ruth,
Hindi binding ang civil union dahil wala itong grasya galing sa Diyos. Walang binigyan "authority" o powers ang Diyos sa "civil servants". Binigay lamang ito ng Diyos sa simbahan at mga pari.
Lahat ng ginawa ng Diyos ay sagrado o "holy". Kung aalisin natin ang "holy" o "sacred" nature ng Matrimony ay para na rin natin sinasabi na higit ang batas o kagustuhan ng tao kaysa sa Diyos.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 12:01:55 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 26, 2006 12:01:55 GMT 10
Kapag ba lawyer, mayor o kung sino ay hindi sagrado? kapag pari sagrado?
Alam ko sagrado lang kasi nasa church kinasal... Parang katulad sa pagdadasal.. Kapag nagdasal ka sa church, sagrado ka...
Pero kapag nagdasal ka sa labas, di sagrado ang place pero tanggap ni LORD lahat ng panalangin as long as may sincereness sa puso ng bawat nagdarasal....
Kahit sa civil o church pa yan kung nandun ang sincereness ng dalwang couple sa marriage, at nandun ang sincereness sa binding na binigay ni LORD, i guess may bisa ang pagkakasal at pagsasama ng dalwang tao...
Hi Hotty,
Gaya ng sinabi ko kay Ruth.
Hindi binding ang civil union dahil wala itong grasya galing sa Diyos. Walang binigyan "authority" o powers ang Diyos sa "civil servants". Binigay lamang ito ng Diyos sa simbahan at mga pari. Hindi niya binigay kay Judge o kay Mayor : )
Lahat ng ginawa ng Diyos ay sagrado o "holy". Kung aalisin natin ang "holy" o "sacred" nature ng Matrimony ay para na rin natin sinasabi na higit ang batas o kagustuhan ng tao kaysa sa Diyos.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 12:05:48 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 26, 2006 12:05:48 GMT 10
The occasion was a wedding, an Eastern wedding. Eastern weddings are very different from Western affairs. In Western weddings the bride is the prominent figure. When she enters, clad in all her glory, the whole congregation stands and the organ thunders, "Here comes the bride; fair, fat and wide! " or whatever it is, and every eye is focused on her. But in Eastern weddings it is the groom that is prominent. He is the featured one; the bride merely shows up for the wedding. (She is like the bridegroom in a Western wedding -- a sort of necessary evil.)
Hi Ruth,
If you go to a Catholic Wedding.... the couple may opt for the Groom to head and start.
If you also research further, there are many Eastern practices being used by the Catholic Church gaya ng pagbibigay ng "aras".
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 12:12:33 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 26, 2006 12:12:33 GMT 10
But weddings can also be tawdry, can't they? Consider a shallow, phony wedding in which the guests listen to vows while thinking about former spouses, abandoned children, and prenuptial negotiations. If a wedding is self-centered, all show and no heart, it can have exactly the opposite response of that engendered by a beautiful wedding. It can put everybody off by its hypocrisy.
Hi Ruth,
Madalas mangyari ito dahil nakakalimutan ng tao ang "pagka-sagrado" ng wedding...
Kaya sa amin - we opted for a simple wedding. We even advised some friends to donate the money intended for gifts to a foundation.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 12:44:17 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 26, 2006 12:44:17 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
Hindi binding ang civil union dahil wala itong grasya galing sa Diyos. Walang binigyan "authority" o powers ang Diyos sa "civil servants". Binigay lamang ito ng Diyos sa simbahan at mga pari. Hindi niya binigay kay Judge o kay Mayor :
No kuya banshik
Chapter 13 of the book of Romans is about our relationship as christians to earthly governments.
Let us talk about the earthly laws and earthly government since you declared that civil union is not ( never] binding because it has not the grace of God the focus now is how a marriage becomes binding through the eyes of God.
First not all people are roman catholics Second..as it was stated earlier by apostle paul at the book of Romans chapter 13 which talks about our relationship with the earthly government
We are to keep the laws of the land to the best of our ability .
If you would look closer to the earthly laws executed by the law makers, our constitution and even with the supreme court and constitution of the united states not only us, the foundation of earthly laws is founded and patterned on the principles of God's Moral Laws.
And even some very God hating governments of the world, they have been allowed to exist by God's appointment. There is a reason they are existing and God has a purpose for even bad governments.
Pharao's rule was ungodly, and even during the time of paul , the roman governjment wad hideous,but jesus taught about taxation to caesar Matthew 22:21
Romans 13:1 and 2 states:
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
here we can see that earthly governments are appointed by God.
The earthly government has the right to execute capital punishment why? because the law is based and patterned after God's moral law.
When Israel asked for a king instead of a prophet, was it bad? NO, GOD GRANTED ISRAEL'S WISH TO HAVE A KING, the very will of the people was annointed by God.
The only thing that makes a government unacceptable to God is when the laws donot abide by the highest order in the principles of God and even if this exist, God has a greater divine plan for mankind as in the time of pharaoh's rule and in the time of the diciple's and christians' persecutions specially in the dark ages.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 12:47:15 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 26, 2006 12:47:15 GMT 10
From the above statements i posted , it clearly proves that earthly governments and law enforcers are annointed and appointed by God..
to say that:
From kuya banshik
Hindi binding ang civil union dahil wala itong grasya galing sa Diyos. Walang binigyan "authority" o powers ang Diyos sa "civil servants". Binigay lamang ito ng Diyos sa simbahan at mga pari. Hindi niya binigay kay Judge o kay Mayor :
is a clear violation of the rule of God.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 13:00:41 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 26, 2006 13:00:41 GMT 10
We talk about sacredness, what makes a thing sacred?
A marriage ceremony is sacred because it is done inside a church with the priest? and others who does not conform is not sacred?
i see fanatical situation.
a marriage is legal and binding there is a license signed by the groom and the bride in the presence of town or city clerk,
the law prohibits marriage ( THESE ARE VARIABLE IN EVERY SOCIETY) TO PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 because the law protects individuals from responsibility other than his/her capability when it comes to age.
God himself stated that one who could not support a family is more than an unbeliever.
since marriage is an agreement entered into before witnesses and usually registered by state officials, whereby one man and one woman agree to live together. This means that everyone knows their intentions and the marriage should form a sound basis for bringing up children who can feel secure as part of a family.
can a 16 or 17 or even below 21 years of age by male part could adhere to such agreement? I doubt that is why the law protects the institution of marriage by itself patterned from the law of God.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 13:13:04 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 26, 2006 13:13:04 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
From kuya banshik
Hindi binding ang civil union dahil wala itong grasya galing sa Diyos. Walang binigyan "authority" o powers ang Diyos sa "civil servants". Binigay lamang ito ng Diyos sa simbahan at mga pari. Hindi niya binigay kay Judge o kay Mayor :
this is a clear violation of the rule of God.
We must remember that our earthly laws which is based on the foundation of God's moral law are executed by our earthly governace in all its aspects. It intends to protect and uphold God's very own will for His people.
A nation needs a government earthly governments are appointed by God. apostle Paul himself taught about obedience and respect to these earthly laws because they govern mankind.
When the judge or state official declares the marriage vows before two witnesses, with the power of attorney to execute and sign the licenses
for better or worse In sickness and in health for richer or poorer till death do us part
is it not sacred? this is of God and from God and the will of God.
[/color]
That makes marriage before a judge legal, binding and sacred because it stands on the very firm foundation of God's moral law
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 17:52:06 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 26, 2006 17:52:06 GMT 10
Kuyang, old testament pa lang, uso na ang civil wedding.... Nung dumating si JESUS in HIS time, uso pa rin ito...Why JESUS never even told the people the right thing to do about marrying in the CHURCH? Kung ang civil wedding nga naman ay against sa LAW OF GOD? If u have the verses na i-su-support sa new testament about jesus preaching sa marriages sa church paki-post nga po.. Batas ng tao ay laws of GOD din ang pinagmulan....
|
|