Kim Davis

[buzuxi02]

Im refering to how Greece never had civil marriages before 1984 or so. Since many of my relatives were married in Greece before the 80's they never had these things.

Dna testing can establish fatherhood now. The days of having the husband's name for identifying paternity of the wife's offspring (whether its his kids or not) as the father is no longer required. With pre-nups and other legal contacts one can establish whatever kind of partnership they want. A pre-nup renders government marriage obselete.

 

[gzt]

Yes, the records of marriage were kept by the church, which again required its own level of record-keeping. This was able to be done in that way because it was a state church.

 

[All4Christ]

Not quite sure why you are being so defensive. My posts have been from an unbiased stance of 'we don't know'. It seems you are viewing this as Evangelist v Eastern Orthodox, for what reason? I feel (and don't take this personally) some of your prejudices are clouding your judgments. This isn't about evangelists, Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, it's a discussion about a decision a supposed Christian woman has made. Not a denomination war.

Expecting a person to agree with your view is one thing, pigeon holing an entire faith group on no evidence is another. Like I said, we aren't privy to every detail. It's easy to form an opinion when not in their shoes. I am genuinely shocked at how quickly Christians get into disputes over such matters.

A side point, Evangelicals are not synonymous with evangelists. All of the above denominations / sects of Christians can be evangelists. Not that this is related to the topic, just something that is often misrepresented by terminology.

 

[rusmeister]

"This weakness in civilisation is best expressed by saying that it cares more for science than for truth. It prides itself on its "methods" more than its results; it is satisfied with precision, discipline, good communications, rather than with the sense of reality." - G.K. Chesterton, "The False Photographer," A Miscellany of Men

This can be paraphrased as "cares more for law than for truth". Or regarding evolution as stated.

 

[buzuxi02]

I don't know, I guess this marriage thing is not for me. How it is that no one has spoken out against government encroachment on this is beyond me. How in good concious a couple entangles themselves voluntarily in such a creepy system because they need validation is beyond me. Forget about gay marriages which is the pinnacle of absurdity to begin with, the entire system is something based out of a dystopian novel.

 

[gzt]

It is really quite minimal and you get quite a lot of benefit for just showing up with your driver's license, your birth certificate, and a gullible woman. I don't see what's so creepy about, gasp, the government confirming taht you really want to be married given how much of a legal liability it is. I mean, the income tax is far more invasive.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I don't know, I guess this marriage thing is not for me. How it is that no one has spoken out against government encroachment on this is beyond me. How in good concious a couple entangles themselves voluntarily in such a creepy system is scary. Forget about gay marriages which is the pinnacle of absurdity to begin with, the entire system is something out of a dystopian novel.

Every institution that man creates is subject to innovation and some of those fashionable renovations add to it and some detract. What matters is what matters to you and how you look at things determines your action concerning them.

 

[buzuxi02]

It is really quite minimal and you get quite a lot of benefit for just showing up with your driver's license, your birth certificate, and a gullible woman. I don't see what's so creepy about, gasp, the government confirming taht you really want to be married given how much of a legal liability it is. I mean, the income tax is far more invasive.

Considering how many men I know needing to pay allimony I would say the man is the gullible one. But secular judges officiating services, what is it in modern society that couples feel the need to go through such a fake and useless ceremony? What are they lacking?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Considering how many men I know needing to pay allimony I would say the man is the gullible one. But secular judges officiating services, what is it in modern society that couples feel the need to go through such a fake and useless ceremony? What are they lacking?

It's not the gullable who pay for lost marriages. It's the children of those who refuse to place any effort in anything other than themselves.

 

[gzt]

It might not be a "service" they "officiate". I mean, you need judicial decrees to change your name, to get divorced, etc. They may do it simply on that basis. Not having ever gotten this service from a judge and not knowing anybody who has (or at least not that I've discussed the matter with), I don't know how it goes. They might just confirm that you want to go through with it, agree to be married, and have you sign the document.

 

[rusmeister]

Marriage can only be one thing and nothing else. While there is the concept of sacramental marriage, which you can speak of separately, I'm not even talking about that now. I'm saying that the government has no power or authority to say what secular marriage is, even if it claims it.

The issue is not the private beliefs of one woman, but whether the government can force an elected official to deny that basic truth.

It may do so out of insanity and demonic godlessness, but all of this talk justifying it and speaking of alternatives for the one woman is vain. Either you stand for the insanity or godlessness, or you stand against it. This woman may not have done what YOU would have chosen to do, but at least she took a stand on the right side.

A person may do outrageous things in the name of the right side, and if they ARE outrageous, we should rebuke them. "Enteo" and Fr Dmitry Smirnov have done things that ought to be rebuked, but silence rings from the Patriarchate, as it did when the government put the women who performed their disruptive "concert" in the cathedral. That is far more outrageous than a non-Orthodox woman who refuses to do any of the things a wicked government wants her to do, and yet you judge her while I hear nothing about them. Kim Davis may not have done the very best thing. You may argue that, though you shouldn't, in my opinion. But unless we agree that she is more right than wrong, and join together and declare that we cannot recognize or support such marriages in any way, shape or form, or even appear to do so, then we will be a house divided, both within the Orthodox Church and all those who worship Christ our God.

 

[dzheremi]

Or...we could not recognize gay marriage and not agree with Kim Davis. That's also a thing.

 

[rusmeister]

Or you could recognize that she is more right - in both denying homosexuals any right to what they do in any sense of being right (as opposed to government claims to the contrary) and in professing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ than she is wrong in her precise tactic of refusing to make it easy for the government to promote its agenda.

I can handle you thinking her wrong in not choosing the best course. What I can't handle is you refusing to say that it is right for us to refuse to confess the lies our government wants us to confess as truth. what is wrong is you expounding about how you think her wrong that you are refusing to admit there is ANYTHING she is right about.

When I look at the witness of the Christian martyrs, I see the people we most venerate doing...what she has done, and not what you prescribe. When I read the hagiographies, I don't read "St So-and-so stepped aside and let someone else conduct the sacrifice." I read "St So-and-so loudly denounced the sacrifices, and refused to permit them in (wherever he was)", and was arrested, etc."

But I guess you read different hagiographies.

 

[dzheremi]

Uh...yeah...anyway...maybe if I believed that the only way to "refuse to confess the lies our government wants us to confess as truth" would be embracing this woman as a hero of Christianity for the ages or whatever, I would be able to muster the outrage that is apparently required of all the real Christians out there.

Last time I checked, though, we're not talking about someone who had their cut off by ISIS on a beach in Libya for confessing Christ (these are the kinds of people who make it into modern Coptic hagiographies; I can't speak to your own church, and don't care to), so all this stuff about Christian martyrs and who ends up in hagiographies or who doesn't is a gigantic stretch, and seems like special pleading to make Mrs. Davis seem like a great Christian role model for others to follow. Maybe so to you, but not to me, and I don't think that makes either of us any less committed to Christ as a result.

 

[rusmeister]

Well, I'm reading your words as "We ought to denigrate her! She should have done something else! She's just a publicity hog who gives Christians a bad name!"

For my part, I'm not saying that she's a martyr unto death, or even torture, nor that she is defending Orthodoxy or anything like that. If you would acknowledge that she is trying to do something right in her life, and paying a price for it, and doing it for Christ's sake (even though mistaken in your estimate) I wouldn't see what I do see in your overall message.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Well, I'm reading your words as "We ought to denigrate her! She should have done something else! She's just a publicity hog who gives Christians a bad name!"

For my part, I'm not saying that she's a martyr unto death, or even torture, nor that she is defending Orthodoxy or anything like that. If you would acknowledge that she is trying to do something right in her life, and paying a price for it, and doing it for Christ's sake (even though mistaken in your estimate) I wouldn't see what I do see in your overall message.

She is not doing anything that is of any significance on any scale but her own. This quote/unquote "Paying the price" is the most ridiculous argument that I have ever heard about people who have placed themselves in a predicament that has brought her into direct conflict with her faith. She simply refused to do what her job entails and that is no sacrifice because she is still getting paid while she still holds the office. It doesn't matter if she sets in jail or not.

This is like saying that I have done something significant if I worked at the service desk and refused to rent a room to a couple I didn't like and sat my rear end in a closet where I was allowed to bath, take food and water that was brought to me and was allowed to use the phone.

This women is on paid vacation in a room that she can't leave and people are praising her for it as if she is was actually being burdened by this. Have you ever been in jail? I have and it's a cake walk. I'm also sure, because of the media that she is getting treated far, far better than anyone else in that jail.

The main thing is that when she gets out the same stipulations will be one her, so she gains nothing from doing this and looses nothing because she still remains a paid employee of the state.

I don't praise her or denigrate her for what she is or is not doing, I just think that if she wanted to make a stand that would be a sacrifice to her faith, she would resign her position. If not then imo she is grandstanding for the accolades of the public that's applauding her.

 

[brinny]

It's also a revenue getter that the Government has created to gain the most money from us for as little effort to them.

Hmmmmmm...never thought of that.....

 

[brinny]

Well, I'm reading your words as "We ought to denigrate her! She should have done something else! She's just a publicity hog who gives Christians a bad name!"

For my part, I'm not saying that she's a martyr unto death, or even torture, nor that she is defending Orthodoxy or anything like that. If you would acknowledge that she is trying to do something right in her life, and paying a price for it, and doing it for Christ's sake (even though mistaken in your estimate) I wouldn't see what I do see in your overall message.

I agree that she is trying to do something right in her life and paying a (HUGE) price for it.....

 

[brinny]

Yes, but we can't speak for her motives. None of us can say if God purposed it in her heart or not. Not that I believe this was the case. So all this speculation and the disputes arising isn't leading anyone to good. We don't have to agree with her position to understand we aren't privy to every detail.

i agree.

 

[seekingsolace]

A side point, Evangelicals are not synonymous with evangelists. All of the above denominations / sects of Christians can be evangelists. Not that this is related to the topic, just something that is often misrepresented by terminology.

You are right to point that out, sometimes I'll carelessly use a term in a sentence and forget to specify. I think I may have lost myself a bit in expressing a sense of division from what I had read. This namely: "since this is not an Evangelical or Roman Catholic board, so such things ought not be indicative of the mindset around here, how the Eastern Orthodox who have supported this woman in this thread or elsewhere feel about these kinds of justifications given for the behavior of Mrs. Davis and similar people."

If you feel like elaborating privately (to not go off-topic) I am grateful. My understanding, to summarize crudely is: evangelist - shares; evangelical - receives.