I understand that you want all marriage to be justified in the eyes of God but it just isn't so - not REAL marriage... not GODLY marriage. 

Whatever, but all relationship are not real marriages, because God won't recognize them. 

  Isn't that just what I've been saying? Carefully study that above statement of yours real hard. What was my opening statement? You know... the one that you were going to set me straight on? The one that set you off on this whole business in the first place? Hold on... let me find it:

He can keep his indoctrination going in his little kinky harem group.  I'll post here.  If he comes here making grand declarations like this quote  " God must be present in the marriage equation for it to be an authentic marriage. No God, no marriage. God created it. <o:p>"   It'll be show time.

---

Yes, Dolly. Show time is over now. I just showed everyone how you agreed with me on the very point of this entire debate. Consider the following "grand declarations:

God must be present in the marriage equation for it to be an authentic marriage. No God, no marriage. God created it.

All relationship are not real marriages, because God won't recognize them. 

How does God recognize a marriage as godly, sanctified, undefiled, and holy? At what point does it become a "real" or "authentic" marriage endorsed and authorized by God. When does a marriage get that seal, or STAMP OF APPROVAL? When is it sealed and how is it sanctified? We could stand and argue that the wall is white but that won't make it any more whiter.

---

I know how much you would prefer to glory in your flesh before God in this but sister, it just doesn't wash. God isn't interested in your tokens of flesh and blood or even in the condition of your bed sheets anymore. 

I some what agree with that, but in a different way and it broadens the topic, so another time perhaps.

It's good to see that you're coming around.

Jesus is the GENUINE COVENANT now. If you don't have Him you really don't have a marriage. 

THAT is what you have not been able to prove.  I plainly showed you some married sinners and these bold unbiblical declarations are all you can come up with as a rebuttal. 

Oh sure, you may have "one flesh" at best. If you want to call that "marriage" you go right ahead... the sodomites and catamites and lesbians are right beside you on that one. Go stand with them. 

Gay people = apples   Virgins and true bachelors & widows = Oranges.

Be it your apples or your Oranges , if your fruit is rotten then your lord is dead and you won't stand a chance in judgment if you think that the old covenant will save you, or your marriage from the pit. Jesus is the genuine covenant and I do declare that without Him you cannot have a godly marriage.

The flesh profiteth nothing.  because they join in the flesh and are given to join in the flesh but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge

If a young man or woman is not a whore or a whoremonger, they will not be judged as such.

Dolly pay attention: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4

Did you get that? I hope you did. Does it say, "all marriage is honourable"? NOPE. It says, "marriage is honourable in all". 

Haha, or to some people it might say "Marriage is to be held in honor among all" or maybe "Marriage should be honored by all"

Dolly. If it is marriage indeed it is to be held in honor. Paul was preaching to the church. That's why he had to point out, make a distinction, and be very clear to the church whenever he referred to the unbelieving. You need to get this right.

One should not nit-pick semantics over a kjv passage that is comprised of added English words like the first portion of Hebrews 13:4 is.

Okay, fine... if you think that Hebrews 13:4 is unacceptable then I understand. I realize it is hard for you to argue your point without resorting to the New Age Bible. I think the translators did a fine job in the AKJV. It's good enough for me.

What sort of marriage is honourable in all? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. So what sort of "marriage is honourable in all" ? One flesh? I hardly think so. Is taking another man's wife honourable? Is it sanctified? Is it holy and undefiled? 

Casual sex with an harlot is forbidden, and I told you why. 

I like the Lord's reasons better than yours. Please don't think it isn't possible to marry a harlot... it just isn't godly.

I think not. Keep your hands to yourself, you filthy-minded woman. Nothing good can come out of the hole you are talking about. Keep it covered because so far, all that has come out of it stinks to high heaven. I know of sodomites that put up better arguments and they stink too. Wash ye, and make ye clean. 

Hahaha (and I'm really laughing) and you've run out of gas.

I see you conveniently cut my reason for saying that from your post. Allow me to put it back:

"Now let me grab the back of your neck and show you some more of the hole I was talking about." - Dolly

Keep your hands to yourself, you filthy-minded woman. Nothing good can come out of the hole you are talking about. Keep it covered because so far, all that has come out of it stinks to high heaven. I know of sodomites that put up better arguments and they stink too. Wash ye, and make ye clean.

 (This is a good reply to any froward woman. I hope the young men are paying attention.)

 Apparently you're assuming that Lamech was the first man to have more than one wife, but the scripture says nothing of the sort.  If God wanted us to know who the first man to take more than one wife was, the Bible would have made it clear that it was the first time such a thing happened. You assume too much.

It's the first record of polygamy and polygamy is not going to prop you up or save you in this discussion. 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you cannot find the proof to support it doesn't make your argument any stronger either.

  Just like you would assume that all union in the flesh is godly marriage or genuine. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit is optional??? 

God will decide who has his Spirit and who does not.  That is a wait and see issue.

God have mercy. You don't know if you have Jesus? Well no wonder you have problems, girl. You need to repent and get saved so you have the true Witness. You have bigger things to tend to right now than worrying about whether or not God honors carnal marriage or not. I recommend the United Pentecostal Church. They might have a lot wrong but they also have a lot right ... plus you can get saved there. Genuine, REAL marriage still awaits you... Holy, undefiled, and Honorable.

This is the lamest argument against two wives I've heard yet. 

I never argued against polygamy. The polygamy issue has allowed you to artificially become bold.  You use the polygamy issue to intimidate most people from a dialog with you. (and it works well)  That won't work with me.  You may use polygamy to muddy the water as pertaining to men and second, third, forth, fifth, ect . . .  wives, but you can not do so with women.  You get a woman who has been remarried while her first husband lives, and she is an adulteress, and whosoever marries her commits adultery, even after you get all done preaching heresy to her.

You know, I'm not sure where you are going with this so I'm going to leave it alone. I have alot to say against Polygamy if it is the kind of thing you're talking about. I resort to the use of that word only when I speak to the carnal minded. I guess that is the problem right there. I thought you might be saved but everything about your demeanor says, "Self-righteous".  I was hoping you were one of His but you are too full of your Self to convince me that you have the truth. You're certainly not a Jew.

Do you also believe that we should be back in the garden chewing on roots and berries, buck naked, and romping with the animals? 

Ouden doesn't sell gas here. I would imagine that you already checked. Evidently you went to the Self-Serve.

Precedence is no justification for what you're trying to prove here. 

Precedence determines what the bible considers a marriage, because Jesus didn't lie. The Precedence I outlined is very problematic, and frankly, blows holes all in your theory. 

The Bible doesn't consider anything. The Bible is a book of books. It doesn't have a brain or a mind.  What Jesus called marriage is ONE FLESH but Jesus also made sure to tell those Pharisees that what God put together they should not put asunder. There is all sorts of ONE FLESH going on in the world that just isn't godly. God did not authorize an harlot to be ONE FLESH and adulterer, but nonetheless they still marry in the flesh. Did God put them together just because of the ordinance He made with the first man and woman in the garden? No, but they are married nonetheless... in the flesh...  BUT NOT IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH!

In the beginning there was no divorcement because there was NO SIN  

Your still out of gas.

Be careful where you sniff or you might get hurt.

(continued)

---