ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 30, 2006 18:41:29 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 30, 2006 18:41:29 GMT 10
ahahhaha! ayaw ko na...serious na si linsi! hahahha! biro lang pows
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 30, 2006 18:49:59 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 30, 2006 18:49:59 GMT 10
kuya B.
ginagawa mong literal mga posts ko..
simple lang ibig kong sabihin
civil wedding does not make a marriage less sacred chruch wedding does not make it more sacred..
the sacredness of marriage or the marriage vow ay hindi lang public ceremony at license..
kung di malaking component doon ang kanilang private life *yung di nakikita ng simbahan at ng mayor at ng judge...
wala akong binaggit na live in or common law marriage...
ang ibig ko lang sabihin ay ang sacredness ng marriage ay hindi lang kasulatan at public ceremenoy (pero di ko sinabi di na kailangan ang kasulatan)...but it does not end in signing a contract...it is a vow for life..
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on Jul 1, 2006 1:55:12 GMT 10
haba na a... sige lang, tuloy lang mga guys..
|
|
|
Post by supremo on Jul 1, 2006 8:07:32 GMT 10
well said linsi.....sige hataw na!!!! Lahat nasabi mo na..... Actually, if youll ask me, mas binding pa nga talaga ang kasal sa civil wedding compare sa church wedding coz civil is the law of the land itself that is followed even by the church. Kung baga void ang church wedding kung alang civil registration. Remember, we are not under a theocratic goverment......even rcc (though they have their own goverment, vatican, yet they are still under rule of pope, or some say a black pope)*tsismis*
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 1, 2006 16:31:23 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jul 1, 2006 16:31:23 GMT 10
waaaaaaaaaa.... ayan na...Kasi nga naman nababanggit pa ang denominations e...
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 1, 2006 16:58:56 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 1, 2006 16:58:56 GMT 10
well said linsi.....sige hataw na!!!! Lahat nasabi mo na..... Actually, if youll ask me, mas binding pa nga talaga ang kasal sa civil wedding compare sa church wedding coz civil is the law of the land itself that is followed even by the church. Kung baga void ang church wedding kung alang civil registration. Remember, we are not under a theocratic goverment......even rcc (though they have their own goverment, vatican, yet they are still under rule of pope, or some say a black pope)*tsismis*
ahehehe
supremo,
na carried away ako pag napapag usapan kc ang moral laws, ordination ng Diyos. si kuya banshik honestly, i always love to invite this guy because i know na kahit magkaiba kami ng church teachings at doctrines napaka objective niya sa discourses, hindi nawawala ang friendship ko sa kanya..
yun nga lang mas pinili ni kuya banshik si ajoma kesa sa meh sinundan pa sa FF wahhhh
lighter side at totoo naman,
basta laging invite ko yan and i always remember him talaga, hindi ako yung taong marunong mambola but i strongly believe that we must give what is due to persons worthy of respect in friendship.
minsan carried away din lahat pero ang maganda nahihiwalay ang forum board sa personal na buhay.. sayang lang di natuloy yung aming eb sa manila pen..kaso need kong mag steleto hills ata at 6 footer si kuya banshik hahaha!
kuya banshik when you got to travel lalo at napadaan ka dito call me ha..ahehehe
hala balik topic pow...
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 1, 2006 17:15:57 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jul 1, 2006 17:15:57 GMT 10
ahahhaha! ayaw ko na...serious na si linsi! hahahha! biro lang pows ahaha! kasi very simple ang example... The adam and eve... and then yung sa yo rin...e ayaw e.. ayan tuloy si linsi humaba na ang replies... at...... hehe, seryoso ang sagot..Straight to the point..
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 3, 2006 14:03:02 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 3, 2006 14:03:02 GMT 10
Yours: Actually, if youll ask me, mas binding pa nga talaga ang kasal sa civil wedding compare sa church wedding coz civil is the law of the land itself that is followed even by the church. Kung baga void ang church wedding kung alang civil registration.
Remember, we are not under a theocratic goverment......even rcc (though they have their own goverment, vatican, yet they are still under rule of pope, or some say a black pope)*tsismis* Hi Supremo,
When we say one is binding over (civil wedding is more binding than a chruch wedding) the other means that one precedes authority over the other. The same case was presented to Christ over to whom should we pay our taxes.
The answer is clear that we render to the government what is due to the government and render to God on what is due to God. It is not an issue of "theocarcy" but an issue on how the faithful applies the Law of God in relation with civil matters.
The predicament of your premise and position is that "marriage is only defined in human terms" which could explain it being more binding under civil law. But in reality, "Marriage" was a grace "created and made by God" for man to have a moral basis for his union. Marriage was and always will be under the nature of Moral law.
It is also clear that before human and civil law came to be...God's law was already there. Before civil weddings came to be...marriage as a sacred union was already established by God.
In fact, under civil wedding - one is only bound until the civil law says so ...while under a wedding under a church means one is bound under the Law of God.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 3, 2006 14:09:55 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 3, 2006 14:09:55 GMT 10
grace is only dispensed by God not by the human priests specially in the last day churches unless one is a roman catholic .
Hi Linsi,
Gaya ng sinabi ko ang difference natin ay ang pagtangap ng "Sacraments".
Pero ang pagkakaalam ko even the Protestant denominations consider "Baptism" as a sacrament. How can you support your premise now if pastors who give baptisms have been used as God's tools to dispense this grace of faith.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 3, 2006 14:17:25 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 3, 2006 14:17:25 GMT 10
there is no other law apart from the law of God.
That's where pinoys have a bacl log regarding faith when they accept things of God only falls on the designation of the priests and what rome dictates. Just read about family planning and sex education.
when the church also meddles with political issues not bestowed to them.
Hi Linsi,
You misinterpeted me. I did not say there is no law apart from God's Law.
What I am saying is that civil laws and other laws attribute their nature and origin from God's Law. Kaya dapat lahat ng batas ay mag-confirm and should support God's law so as not to lose its moral dimension and purpose.
Therefore, Civil Wedding should also confirm with the Moral Laws and precepts defined by God. This does not mean that one over the other intervenes that division between Church and State but actually affirms it.
I hope this would clear the issue.
|
|
|
Post by supremo on Jul 6, 2006 2:02:43 GMT 10
Yours: Actually, if youll ask me, mas binding pa nga talaga ang kasal sa civil wedding compare sa church wedding coz civil is the law of the land itself that is followed even by the church. Kung baga void ang church wedding kung alang civil registration.
Remember, we are not under a theocratic goverment......even rcc (though they have their own goverment, vatican, yet they are still under rule of pope, or some say a black pope)*tsismis*Hi Supremo, When we say one is binding over (civil wedding is more binding than a chruch wedding) the other means that one precedes authority over the other. The same case was presented to Christ over to whom should we pay our taxes. The answer is clear that we render to the government what is due to the government and render to God on what is due to God. It is not an issue of "theocarcy" but an issue on how the faithful applies the Law of God in relation with civil matters. The predicament of your premise and position is that "marriage is only defined in human terms" which could explain it being more binding under civil law. But in reality, "Marriage" was a grace "created and made by God" for man to have a moral basis for his union. Marriage was and always will be under the nature of Moral law. It is also clear that before human and civil law came to be...God's law was already there. Before civil weddings came to be...marriage as a sacred union was already established by God. In fact, under civil wedding - one is only bound until the civil law says so ...while under a wedding under a church means one is bound under the Law of God. Yes, definitely, my premise on that post is "marriage as only defined in human term" coz we are not in a "theocratic" goverment. Although our laws are based on God's law, yet reality check...it is still human that governs us.....and GOD allows it that way... Now my question is this....will God honor civil marriage and in his eyes He will consider them as husband and wife? Or only church wedding???
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 11, 2006 13:08:28 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 11, 2006 13:08:28 GMT 10
Now my question is this....will God honor civil marriage and in his eyes He will consider them as husband and wife? Or only church wedding??? Hi Supremo, Jesus said "render to Caesar what is to Caesar, and render to God what is to God". If the sacrament of the holy union of matrimony was created by God and given by God to man under a moral purpose, it is rational that God would honor such union under the precepts of His own terms and laws. Thus, God would only honor a sacred union under His own Church. FYI. No offense meant to other denominations but merely an information footnote... In RCC, the civil marriage certificate is not a pre-requisite to get married. A certificate would be granted by the civil authorities acknowledging the union.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 1:04:14 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 1:04:14 GMT 10
FYI. No offense meant to other denominations but merely an information footnote... In RCC, the civil marriage certificate is not a pre-requisite to get married. A certificate would be granted by the civil authorities acknowledging the union.
makasali nga kuya banshik
good you stated this that the RCC does nor need a marriage certificate, so where does the RCC get its own certificate? from its own office? who now dictates the office the vatican?
and if marriage certificate is not pre-requisite therefore that marriage has no number license from the civil registry which is acknowledge by the constitution of the land?
and so the RCC has its own version of marriage then.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 1:11:16 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 1:11:16 GMT 10
FYI. No offense meant to other denominations but merely an information footnote... In RCC, the civil marriage certificate is not a pre-requisite to get married. A certificate would be granted by the civil authorities acknowledging the union.
makasali nga kuya banshik
I for one is never offended, why should i ? first of all i donot speak of my own religion here i discuss things in the bible and related to the bible not related to any particular religious tradition or sect. As long as i am within the context of the scriptures, i feel very safe and nothing can move me personally.
it is just plain and simple. two things, never was it stated in the bible that the only sacred wedding ceremonycan be performed only by roman catholic priests only inside a roman catholic church nowhere was it stated lagi ko na nga lang paulet ulet hehe
I always look back to the church of jerusalem where the 12 disciples started, that is my parameter when it comes to last day churches.
i welcome ideas but will refer it always to the scriptures not merely by particular religious sect traditions. NO OFFENSE PO DITO.
i always abide by christ's example of supporting an earthly government, God's example that sacredness of everything is based on God's words, implemented on God's principles. apostle Pauls teaching about respecting and obeying earthly governace not excluding marraige ceremonies, but all...considering the foundations are based on the bible. nowhere was it stated that wedding ceremonies are excluded and are solely claimed sacred only when performed by the roman catholic priests and church, wala po sa bibliya kahit saang page while earthly governace can be supported as a means to declare marriage as sacred and binding.
sa katunayan earthly governace supports and protects the marriage institution of God. that is plain and simple
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 1:18:07 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 1:18:07 GMT 10
If the sacrament of the holy union of matrimony was created by God and given by God to man under a moral purpose, it is rational that God would honor such union under the precepts of His own terms and laws. Thus, God would only honor a sacred union under His own Church.
did the jerusalem church declare such? did christ say that? i don't think so kuya banshik, in our lengthy exchanges i explained the validity of the union, in a civil wedding, its sacredness and integrity protected by the law of the land acknowledging it is an intitution from God. therefore those who are not against God's wedding rules are for God. that is clear and simple. everything is sacred when it acknowledges God's principles as civil wedding does.
How come you still could not accept this? well--- this is just your own perceptions as a roman catholic.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 1:20:29 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 1:20:29 GMT 10
From supremo Now my question is this....will God honor civil marriage and in his eyes He will consider them as husband and wife? Or only church wedding???
God will honor things done under his name, under his will, under his rules and principles, in heaven, on earth, in everywhere as long as it acknowledges and stands in the very principles of God.
kahit pa sa kweba yan or sa submarine.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 11:52:14 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jul 13, 2006 11:52:14 GMT 10
kahit sa MARS pa nga....
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 15:33:42 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 15:33:42 GMT 10
makasali nga kuya banshik
good you stated this that the RCC does nor need a marriage certificate, so where does the RCC get its own certificate? from its own office? who now dictates the office the vatican?
and if marriage certificate is not pre-requisite therefore that marriage has no number license from the civil registry which is acknowledge by the constitution of the land?
and so the RCC has its own version of marriage then.
Hi Linsi,
What I meant was to establish the separation of Church and State, the RCC does not require couples to get a civil marriage first before getting married in Church.
To establish validity of the marriage in the RCC Church, civil authorities recognize the union and offer a marriage certificate.
It is never an issue of marriage "version". It is just an explanation to show primacy of a religious marriage.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 15:39:13 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 15:39:13 GMT 10
I for one is never offended, why should i ? first of all i donot speak of my own religion here i discuss things in the bible and related to the bible not related to any particular religious tradition or sect. As long as i am within the context of the scriptures, i feel very safe and nothing can move me personally.
Hi Linsi,
Easy lang. I have to mention the "disclaimer" under the objective of not isolating other people who have different beliefs.
Although, your second statement seemed to be contradictory. Each one of us do speak about our religion in the discourse and the forum.
But I do have a question if you would insist on the context of scriptures.
There is no written instruction on how marriage should be done also. So what would be the basis of the other "rituals", traditions, etc. that all non-RCC denominations practice?
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 15:45:29 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 15:45:29 GMT 10
it is just plain and simple. two things, never was it stated in the bible that the only sacred wedding ceremonycan be performed only by roman catholic priests only inside a roman catholic church nowhere was it stated lagi ko na nga lang paulet ulet hehe
I always look back to the church of jerusalem where the 12 disciples started, that is my parameter when it comes to last day churches.
i welcome ideas but will refer it always to the scriptures not merely by particular religious sect traditions. NO OFFENSE PO DITO.
Hi Linsi,
Nowehere is it also stated that in the Bible granting ordinary men the authority to perform sacraments. Nowhere is it also stated that marriage should also be practiced outside of the Church.
Please reflect on the basis of the Church of Jerusalem.
What authority and the nature of authority of the 12 receive prior to the establishment of the Church of Jerusalem?
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 15:55:45 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 15:55:45 GMT 10
did the jerusalem church declare such? did christ say that? i don't think so kuya banshik, in our lengthy exchanges i explained the validity of the union, in a civil wedding, its sacredness and integrity protected by the law of the land acknowledging it is an intitution from God. therefore those who are not against God's wedding rules are for God. that is clear and simple. everything is sacred when it acknowledges God's principles as civil wedding does.
How come you still could not accept this? well--- this is just your own perceptions as a roman catholic.
Hi Linsi,
The sacred bond of marriage was not declared by the Church of Jerusalem. The sacred nature of the union was defined by Jesus Christ.
Mat 19:4-7.... which ends "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put assunder".
Ibig sabihin, ang tunay na kasal ay kasal sa mata ng Diyos (God has joined together). Hindi nakalagay ang kasal sa huwes o mayor o sa batas ng tao. Men can choose acknowledge civil unions under the precepts of cibil law...but one can not equate this civil union as the same equivalent as a union made under God by God.
So how can you say a civil union become "sacred" when the bible itself was clear that the true union be made under God and by God?
PS. Hotty, its not a question of athe "place or venue" (submarine man o sa Mars) but the nature of how the union was made.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 16:00:36 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 16:00:36 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
The sacred bond of marriage was not declared by the Church of Jerusalem. The sacred nature of the union was defined by Jesus Christ.
Mat 19:4-7.... which ends "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put assunder".
quick reply muna kuya banshik
Jesus christ defined the sacred union which supposed to be m,anifested by jerusalem church because it is the first christian church where the disciples break bread in fellowship.
the first 12 disciples were the 12 students of jesus christ and they learned everything from Christ, but jerusalem church did never endorse a roman cahtolic priest and RCChurch in particular to claim that marriage is sacred only in this congregation because Christ called all people unto God and sacredness is based on faith with the principles of Christ as the cornerstones.
so what you are claiming is only for the RCC, what i am saying here is for the universal body of the christian believing church specially the bible believing church, not on particular religious tradition or particular teaching of a certain religious sect like the RCC.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 16:02:25 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 16:02:25 GMT 10
kuya banshik
you are a roman catholic, it would be much better if you would welcome ideas based on the bible and the church history because your perceptions are tainted by Rome only, and i totally disagree with these because Rome was politically ridden eversince.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 16:04:48 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 16:04:48 GMT 10
Mat 19:4-7.... which ends "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put assunder".
itong mat 10:4 na ito ay bilin yes tama, but do you know that the earthly governace supports this verse? kaya nga pag matigas ang ulo at nagkarun ng corruptions ang marriage, like ngayon napaka taas ngt adultery, extra marital affairs at divorce rates, the earthly civil laws protect the one who was faulted and gives integrity to the marriage vows by executing the laws?
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 16:07:56 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 16:07:56 GMT 10
Mat 19:4-7.... which ends "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put assunder".
itong mat 10:4 na ito ay bilin yes tama, but do you know that the earthly governace supports this verse? kaya nga pag matigas ang ulo at nagkarun ng corruptions ang marriage, like ngayon napaka taas ng adultery, extra marital affairs at divorce rates, the earthly civil laws protect the one who was faulted and gives integrity to the marriage vows by executing the laws?
binilin nga yan hindi naman natutupad, ng napaka rami why? because there is a neglect in spiritual transformation, ang alam lang nagpakasal at ignorance sa maintenance ng kasal so yung bilin na yun hindi tinutupad ng mas nakararami so what will our earthly government do?
support the institution of marriage by executing the full laws to that institution, kung pwedeng ma remedyuhan at kung hinde, the one's being faulted is protected.
that is of God. it is in the book of corinthians and even in the gospel of matthew
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 16:10:20 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 16:10:20 GMT 10
Ibig sabihin, ang tunay na kasal ay kasal sa mata ng Diyos (God has joined together). Hindi nakalagay ang kasal sa huwes o mayor o sa batas ng tao. Men can choose acknowledge civil unions under the precepts of cibil law...but one can not equate this civil union as the same equivalent as a union made under God by God.
So how can you say a civil union become "sacred" when the bible itself was clear that the true union be made under God and by God?
ok kuya banshik kung ayaw mong tanggapin, hehe but biblically speaking anything which is done patterned after the laws of God is sacred to HIM.
come on, do you mean to say ang marriage sa katoliko lang ang binding and sacred? e di dapat walang mataas na divorce rate kung binding yan at titingnan natin sa Pinas na maraming illicit affairs samantalang kasal katoliko yang mga yan.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 16:12:32 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 16:12:32 GMT 10
Hi Linsi, Nowehere is it also stated that in the Bible granting ordinary men the authority to perform sacraments. Nowhere is it also stated that marriage should also be practiced outside of the Church.
uulitin ko, kulitan na ba haha
mas may bearing ang ginawa ni christ na nag tax kay caesar, hindi sinabi ni christ na pwera ang kasal ng mga judge.. hehe
hindi rin sinabi ni christ na balang araw ang rome ang siyang magiging centro ng sacredness pagdating sa kasal.. rome was politically ridden ..
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 19:37:01 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 19:37:01 GMT 10
kuya banshik
eto talaga ang no offense ha, kung ang dalawang tao ay gustong magpakasal at wala silang pera para sa isang traditional roman catholic wedding, paano na..
ang RCC ay may special or ordinary wedding ceremony, hindi ito sinabi ni christ or ng mga disciples na may category na special or ordinary ayon sa amount na ibabayad sa simbahan, dapat ang kasal walang bayad. no offense yan.
trahe do boda, mga abay, mga ninong, reception at guests, kahit simple breakfast wedding reception ngayon or 10 years ago, it will costs too much so we will therefore perceive things as commercially treated.
sa contemporary pinas settings na lang.., of course ang couple na supposed to be magpapakasal sa judge pupunta for economic reasons or they just wanted it simple and legal..
ibig sabihin hindi sacred at binding ito? Ang kasal ay ordinance ng Diyos at ayaw nila ng live in gusto nila kasal sa judge, two witnesses, the bride, the groom, the judge, the vows, marriage contract with license, ibig sabihin hindi ito recognize ng Diyos
ahehehe that is a definite denial of God's ordinance about wedding. tapos yung vows, yung regististry na sunod sa ordinances ng Diyos na ginawa sa office ng judge, hindi kikilalanin ng Diyos at sasabihin niyang-- aah hindi ito binding? dapat sa roman catholic church dapat sa priests? wooah-- that is not the God i am serving.. Christ supported caesar's government by taxing, and apostle paul even admonished respect and obedience to earthly governments, hindi sinabing excluding marriage ceremony. this is unthinkable..
nung mag tax si christ kay caesar, ibig bang sabihin hindi supported ni christ ang lahat ng sangay ng government operations ni caesar sa rome, at pwera ang pagkakasal?
come on kuya banshik, let us make our horizons, wider and free from religious tampers.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 20:23:25 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 20:23:25 GMT 10
Jesus christ defined the sacred union which supposed to be m,anifested by jerusalem church because it is the first christian church where the disciples break bread in fellowship.
the first 12 disciples were the 12 students of jesus christ and they learned everything from Christ, but jerusalem church did never endorse a roman cahtolic priest and RCChurch in particular to claim that marriage is sacred only in this congregation because Christ called all people unto God and sacredness is based on faith with the principles of Christ as the cornerstones.
so what you are claiming is only for the RCC, what i am saying here is for the universal body of the christian believing church specially the bible believing church, not on particular religious tradition or particular teaching of a certain religious sect like the RCC.
Hi Linsi,
1. Thanks for acknowledging that it was Jesus Christ who established and defined the "sacred union" of marriage and not the Church of Jerusalem.
2. If the 12 learned from Jesus Christ, it also meant that there were instructions given by Jesus to the 12. This instruction also comprise the basis of the authority of the 12.
(a) The same set of instructions were never written at all (b) The instructions should carry authority as well. Is it not the apostles were given the authority to appoint successors - bishops, priests, and deacons? Could it be possible that the same successors received the same set of instructions given by Jesus?
3. If we follow the logic of succession, it should be that the successors of the 12 carry the "instructions" which also contain the doctrine on the sanctity of marriage. The same conclusion which would lead on "who would officiate" the marriage union if we want it to be under the grace of God.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 20:26:55 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 20:26:55 GMT 10
kuya banshik
you are a roman catholic, it would be much better if you would welcome ideas based on the bible and the church history because your perceptions are tainted by Rome only, and i totally disagree with these because Rome was politically ridden eversince.
Hi Linsi,
Politics and history are the cover the human dimensions of the Church. What is being discussed here is not the human dimension but the doctrinal foundation which confers to the Truth.
On your previous post just acknowledging succession of Jesus Christ to the 12 apostles is the same basis I am using my position. It is both biblical and has basis on Church history.
Your disagreement is noted. : )
|
|