Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
177 online now:
Hyroglyphx, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 173 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,147 Year: 2,895/23,288 Month: 1,086/1,809 Week: 205/313 Day: 17/69 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Jesus's divorce law anti-love?
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 798 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 1 of 12 (735251)
08-07-2014 9:35 AM


Is Jesus's divorce law anti-love?

Jesus agreed with the O.T God on divorce. Let no man break that union or let no man put asunder.

I see that as anti-love. If Jesus is wrong about such a fundamental issue, then what else was he wrong about?

If a Christian, even if you become convinced that Jesus was indeed wrong, it would not make any difference to you because you actually follow tradition, culture and your family’s inherited traditional God. Not really a God that you selected through trials of his moral character. Right? Shame on you for neglecting the most important decision of your life.

I think that the moral reason all divorce pleas should be granted is that no one, gay, straight and all conditions in between or over, should be denied the ability to seek a lifetime loving partner, wife or husband, for any reason. I see being able to seek a loving mate or partner as a fundamental human right.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 08-08-2014 11:02 AM Greatest I am has not yet responded
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2014 12:29 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1949
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 12 (735253)
08-08-2014 10:49 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Is Jesus's divorce law anti-love? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 13703
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3 of 12 (735254)
08-08-2014 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
08-07-2014 9:35 AM


I think that the moral reason all divorce pleas should be granted is that no one, gay, straight and all conditions in between or over, should be denied the ability to seek a lifetime loving partner, wife or husband, for any reason.
If Jesus is/was seen simply as a moral teacher, it could be argued that though He may not have been wrong for that cultural era, His wisdom is wrong for todays world. Keep in mind, however, that marriage is a sacrament and that although it is always a persons right to seek a lifetime partnership, the very idea of marriage is a symbol of having made the choice. As a legal contract, marriage can be ammended at any time though some would argue that as a contract it should be binding and not at all easy to simply violate.

If a Christian, even if you become convinced that Jesus was indeed wrong, it would not make any difference to you because you actually follow tradition, culture and your family’s inherited traditional God. Not really a God that you selected through trials of his moral character.
Many Christians believe that God existed long before we were born and that it is He whom selected us rather than us creating Him in our own image and mindset. It is good, however, to bring up the idea of tradition and culture. If Jesus is the eternal Son of God (Gods character manifested in human flesh) the question to ask is if He would change as cultures and traditions change or whether He would be a rock in the midst of societal and cultural change.

I see that as anti-love.
Does love originate from within our souls/minds or is love originating from an external source---in communion with us?

...."When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 08-07-2014 9:35 AM Greatest I am has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 08-08-2014 11:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32174
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 4 of 12 (735256)
08-08-2014 11:39 AM


totally irrelevant issue
Marriage is a contract and the terms of the contract should determine whether or not it can be dissolved.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17929
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 5 of 12 (735257)
08-08-2014 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
08-08-2014 11:02 AM


Phat writes:

Keep in mind, however, that marriage is a sacrament....


That's the problem. It shouldn't be.

The religious view of marriage doesn't work. The secular view is at least an attempt to make it work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 08-08-2014 11:02 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 12 (735262)
08-08-2014 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
08-07-2014 9:35 AM


Jesus agreed with the O.T God on divorce. Let no man break that union or let no man put asunder.

I see that as anti-love. If Jesus is wrong about such a fundamental issue, then what else was he wrong about?

Have you ever been married?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 08-07-2014 9:35 AM Greatest I am has not yet responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 1921 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 7 of 12 (735554)
08-17-2014 10:22 PM


How is it anti-love to be against divorce? What is your definition of love? That could be the difference.
A state contracted marriage is not the same as God's.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2014 2:24 AM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by jar, posted 08-18-2014 9:24 AM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 08-18-2014 12:12 PM mram10 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7353
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 8 of 12 (735567)
08-18-2014 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mram10
08-17-2014 10:22 PM


mram writes:


A state contracted marriage is not the same as God's.

God's never shown up at any marriage I've ever been to, but the state has always sent its rep. Perhaps God needs to take more of an interest if he wants anyone to take notice of what he does and doesn't think needs to be in a marriage contract?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mram10, posted 08-17-2014 10:22 PM mram10 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32174
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 9 of 12 (735577)
08-18-2014 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mram10
08-17-2014 10:22 PM


But the only valid marriages are contracts and that has been true since long before Jesus lived.

In the US the only valid marriages are state sanctioned marriages.

Priests, pastors and clergy include "By the power vested in me by [state] I pronounce you ...".

Have you ever read the Bible? The three parts of of a Biblical valid marriage are "Contract", "Consumption" and "Celebration".

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mram10, posted 08-17-2014 10:22 PM mram10 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17929
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 10 of 12 (735588)
08-18-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mram10
08-17-2014 10:22 PM


mram10 writes:

How is it anti-love to be against divorce? What is your definition of love? That could be the difference.


I almost gave you a cheer for that...

mram10 writes:

A state contracted marriage is not the same as God's.


but then you shot yourself in the foot. "God's" marriage is difficult to detect.

If a church-sanctioned marriage ends in divorce, does that mean it wasn't "God's" marriage? That sounds suspiciously like the No True Scotsman fallacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mram10, posted 08-17-2014 10:22 PM mram10 has not yet responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 1921 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 11 of 12 (735795)
08-25-2014 10:31 AM


Ahhhhh.... enter the "free will" debate. God's "ideals" not being adhered to is based on our choice to abide by those. The Hebrew God of the bible found a contract to be very important. This brings up a great debate topic. Off to start a new thread!!

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 1810 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 12 of 12 (744052)
12-07-2014 5:51 PM


Somebody had a problem with stoning in another thread which discusses morality and evolution, and here seems a good place to mention it.

The divorce issue was addressed by Jesus in Mark 10.
He said that God ALLOWED divorce by Moses, because of their poor abilities to maintain a happy relationship.
It is certainly not God's ideal, but He is not in favor of leaving people in torturous relationships either.
He does not like polygamy at all, but Abraham and many others had extra relationships, which God put up with. The results of having another woman in the marriage caused Abraham and Sarah a lot of grief, which is not what God wanted for them at all. But if He had forced Abraham and Sarah to not include Hagar, then God would be interfering with their freedom. They had to make the choices for their marriage as if they owned it, they were to be the royalty of that family.

They could have included God in their decision making, but there was a lot of distrust going on at the time, and to include God would have been dishonest.
God prefers honesty over and above anything, because there is no such thing as love without it.

People need to be given the freedom to make their minds up, but a sensible person uses a car according to the manual, you don't put milk in the fuel tank.
(yet).

Now in regards to stoning, some see it as a very harsh punishment, like the laws in Bali against drug smugglers - it's usually death. But the consequences of allowing drug use are thousands of times worse than one death. It destroys society. (I don't want to talk about the hypocrisy of those authorities which is the another aspect of corruption).

If a man, if you can call it that, had a thing for his daughter, sheep or other men or trees, he would be stoned, because such an uprising in a nation would bring the most notorious crimes and vile misery and destruction. You can't tell me, that in parts of the world where such things are condoned by society and the authorities, that people jump off bridges because of intolerance. They are extremely tortured and miserable. And it is hardly their fault, and are betrayed by sin in others and in themselves. Very sad.

Stoning was a very quick death, large stones were hurled by a crowd of people, so it would be heavier than machine gun fire. Later the stupid Jewish leadership recommended cruelties and torture by ordering smaller stones and less throwers.
Also stoning was only intended when there was no remedy for the guilty, so it was the very last resort towards criminals, not the first resort as the Jews made it.

God never intended that any of these punishments or crimes should take place, and if Israel had listened and wizened up they would not have to have such a system of capital punishment. But in their agreement with God they decided that they would like to be part and parcel of the theocracy, and so God gave them their choices in the agreement.

For example, they were initially not going to fight in battles, God would take care of the enemies, but in their distrust, they decided to be part of it again, as if God needed them to fight, and so they entered into battles, with success but also losses.

So in essence God concedes to work with people on their level, in the hope that they will see what is happening and move upward in trust, but the general history of that nation is one of back sliding and getting worse, however many individuals and families did not do that, for example Joshua and Caleb.

In regards to marriage and sexual relationships, God does not condemn a gay person, because they, like the divorcees, are disadvantaged in some way, physically, psychologically, socially, emotionally. People cannot help who they are, and God accepts them if they come to Him, with His unconditional love. People cannot help the way they have been treated as children, or the condition or society around them, and many other factors.

In the days of Christ and the disciples, the incestuous, rapists, polygamists, were converted and put away their former life. For such a genuine change to take place, required a much more primitive and effective connection with God than proposed by the weakened power hungry and lying world of Christendom today.

God is not interested in forcing something onto us, but wants us to be comforted by His willingness to be there for us in any situation. It rains on everyone, and if our eyes were enlightened, we would see every person has guardian angels of God to heighten the senses to the fact that faith and trust which can only work by love, is a new way of life that leads to eternal life.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020