Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8993 total)
56 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK (3 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,081 Year: 10,829/23,288 Month: 81/1,763 Week: 48/390 Day: 1/30 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Case against Kim Davis dismissed
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 103 (790548)
08-31-2016 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
08-31-2016 10:31 AM


Re: It was her job, then it wasn't
She refused because her name had to be on the licenses. When the new law removed that requirement the deputies could issue the licenses.

Let's keep the facts straight here. Deputies were issuing licenses well before any change in the law to allow removing her name. There was only a brief period were her refusal had any effect on the public. My understanding was that the clerks were issuing licenses without her name on them despite the fact that the law required her name on the certificate. Kim Davis was ordered not to interfere.

Later, a law was passed to clear up the idea that the certificates were not valid and of course to protect the clerks like Kim Davis.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 08-31-2016 10:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
saab93f
Member
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(3)
Message 77 of 103 (790549)
08-31-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
08-30-2016 8:46 AM


No., that's utterly disgusting PC. Christians are not a race, they aren't really even a legitimate class at all that deserves any concession from society. The world has gone loony however and now we recognize them as a special class, ridiculous though that is, so I'm for some kind of compromise. I'm certainly not for treating them as equal to a race of people.

You wanna guess which one word I altered in your text?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 950 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(7)
Message 78 of 103 (790555)
08-31-2016 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
08-31-2016 10:34 AM


quote:
When the law came down forcing it on the nation a majority did not accept it.

Just to make sure your nonsense above doesn't stand, here is the chart posted earlier with a big red arrow at the point when the Supreme Court "forced" the law on the nation.

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 08-31-2016 10:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 09-02-2016 8:06 AM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 79 of 103 (790639)
09-02-2016 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ThinAirDesigns
08-31-2016 6:12 PM


Obergefell was decided in June 2015. Gallup:

Pew:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 08-31-2016 6:12 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-02-2016 1:38 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 950 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(3)
Message 80 of 103 (790653)
09-02-2016 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by JonF
09-02-2016 8:06 AM


Yep -- Faith was just making stuff up.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 09-02-2016 8:06 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 81 of 103 (791283)
09-13-2016 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
08-31-2016 11:05 AM


Faith writes:

Word magic is powerful. it's OK now to marry people who have no natural reason to marry, against the cultural and religious standards that every nation accepted until recently,

People used to say the same of marrying couples of different races. Guess what? It didn't become bigoted to be against mixed raced couples just recently. It was always bigoted. History will look on Christians who keep pushing for discrimination against gay couples the same way you look at racists.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 08-31-2016 11:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 82 of 103 (792292)
10-07-2016 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
08-30-2016 5:41 AM


Secular law and religious policy on divorce itself is an example to look at Faith
quote:

[Faith]
She had the job before the Supreme Court put her in a corner regarding her Christian faith.
Yes this is a victory for religious freedom. Gay marriage is a violation of God's Law.

Look at the basic issue of divorce itself.

I have this book by a great scholar (he spends a lot of time on Aramaic and Greek words, and is respected on all sorts of textual critical and historical critical issues), but he did something different. He looked at contemporary applications of scripture by various religious communities and spent a few pages (though a small percentage of his overall massive work which otherwise was more historically oriented like typical scholars).

The issue of divorce is confusing but it seems that the New Testament prohibition was compromised by protestants for reasons involving secular realities (and the church policies were essentially an attempt to match doctrine with secular law).

quote:

Ulrich Luz Matthew 1-7
Continental Commentary

p.301
Fully two-thirds of the scholarly essays or books published on our text in the last twenty years (about 60!) come from Catholic pens and have the main or subsidiary purpose to declare it in harmony with Catholic marriage law. Thus with this text we enter an area of sensitive and controversial theology. It becomes less manifest from the literature that it could also put Protestant divorce practice into question.

p.303
Another thesis also must be examined critically. Frequently it is said that Jesus’ prohibition of divorce is not a sentence of law but a principle, a provocation, a bit of parenesis in form of a sentence of law, in analogy to 5:22,28-“alienated” language of law-which wanted to mediate a fundamental, incontrovertible ethical demand. The relevance of this thesis for the present debate concerning the laws of divorce of the various churches is considerable. Formally, v. 32 is an apodictic sentence of law which ends with a statement of guilt and not with a sentence of punishment. Matthew 5:22,28 shows that such sentences of law can be used parametrically; then the sentence of law intensifies the parenesis. But 5:32 has a different character from 5:22,28: in distinction from a word of abuse or a seductive look, the prohibition of divorce can be enforced and checked by law; that is shown in the community order of Qumran. Therefore all early Christian communities have drawn legal consequences from Jesus’ prohibition of divorce; Mark 10:11, through the addition of “and marries another,” specifies the time when the divorce is final and liable to judgment. Paul through his “privilege,” 1 Cor. 7:12-17, does not invalidate the prohibition of the Lord, but he came out with an opinion at the point where the community, standing under the command of the Lord, and the world intersect. In any case, Matthew clearly shows through his “clause” that he understands Jesus’ prohibition of divorce as an order valid in his community and precisely for this reason can formulate an exception. In view of this unanimous finding in early Christianity it seems problematic to charge him with making a law of an ethical demand of Jesus. (there was more to this paragraph mlm)

p.307
The history of influence mirrors the varying legal regulations of divorce in the different denominations. The basic position of the major confessional traditions is familiar; every pastor experiences its consequences. I would like to indicate only some main lines and limit myself to the position of the major churches.

A. The Catholic position, which provides for the possibility of a separation of table, bed, and living quarters with a remaining vinculum (bond) of the marriage, especially approaches the Matthean position, it seems to me. This is perhaps surprising, in view of the flood of Catholic literature which is probably an expression of its great uncertainty. Certainly there are differences. Matthew…does not distinguish between the possible separation and the impossible divorce-when the marriage bond still exists.


Luz also pointed out that the fornication (he doesn’t use that word but instead the Greek word) issue is no longer the chief concern in the Catholic “separation of table, bed, and living quarters”, thus that is quite a difference since Matthew uses so few words while the Catholic rule system does broaden things out quite a bit in the effort of implementation.

quote:

p.308
But the decisive point, in which Matthew and the Catholic practice converge, lies in the prohibition to marry a divorced woman. With it agrees the no to a second marriage which the church fathers in general maintained with great decisiveness; not until the 4th century does a change take place in the East. Since then the tendency to put man and woman on an equal level, as far as the church is concerned, is important. Matthew 5:32 was formulated only as an address of the husband. In relation to the wife, it results from Matt. 5:32b that no woman may marry a divorced man. This means that Matt. 5:32, with the thoroughgoing equalization of man and woman, leads to the demand to marry neither divorced men nor divorced woman, i.e., to a form of “divorce” (only in the case of unchastely!) which is distinguished from the Jewish form principally by the fact that it does not include the possibility of a second marriage. In regard to content, if not terminology, this corresponds precisely to the separation of bed, table, and residence. Therefore, no legal ecclesiastical solution is as close to the Matthean one as the Catholic one. That becomes clear as soon as one takes v. 32b also into consideration.

This is only half of the page devoted to the Catholic position in this small section of the Luz commentary. Remember, this is just a sliver of the meat in his larger commentary.

quote:

308
b. In the Orthodox churches, divorce makes it possible to enter with repentance into a second marriage.

On page 308-309: In the Eastern Orthodox church, a divorcee is allowed to remarry “not according to divine law but according to… fairness ” and the “prohibition to marry divorced persons is neglected with respect to the weakness of the human being…” though only “some” Greek fathers cautiously took this position in the first several centuries after Christ.)

Now, the interest protestant position and how it came to be.

quote:

c. The Orthodox position became alive anew in the churches of the Reformation, perhaps through the mediation of Erasmus. The Reformers also emphasize that a marriage is destroyed through adultery; therefore a divorce is possible. A factor which is essential for the further development and new contrast to the Eastern churches is the understanding of marriage by the Reformers as a “secular thing.” This understanding had different consequences: it led first of all to a great uncertainty over the question how the problem of divorce was to be solved as a problem of church law. The mixed ecclesiastical-secular courts of the Reformation period were a brief result. Already after a certain time, the legal competency for divorce became a secular matter alongside of which binding regulations of church law existed only in an initial stage. Theologically, the basic conviction that Jesus’ prohibition of divorce was not a law but an ethical demand, which must be well distinguished from civil law, corresponds to this development. This made it possible to minister openly in pastoral care, guided by love, and to take seriously the concrete situation of a marriage, but it led at the same time to the actual adoption of the church to secular marriage law or to the secular (sinful!) reality of marriage and to its proclamation of God’s grace in all situations without distinction. [66]
….
p.309
….
[66] Particularly in Luther, to whom divorce is such an abomination that he would prefer bigamy to it if necessary…, it is striking


earlier than 66 note on 309 till p.310 “ecclesiastical law of“

quote:

p.309-310
The need in all confessional traditions is great. The immovable ecclesiastical law concerning divorce in Catholicism appears to many people as the opposite of the love and forgiveness of God. The lack of a practiced ecclesiastical law of divorce in Protestantism on the other hand leads to the fact that the individual pastor is left alone and must choose most of the time the way of least resistance, i.e. , the blessing of all that has happened. He experiences the reverse of Luther’s grandiose principal thesis that love by no means needs laws, and may ask himself or herself whether laws also could provide help to love so that it does not accept everything and remain silent in face of everything. For a protestant who experiences the ambiguity of his or her own church, it is moving to see how Catholic brothers or sisters who suffer under the situation in their church reach for the thesis that Jesus’ prohibition of divorce is not a sentence of law, i.e., for that problematical basic Protestant thesis in which the Protestant recognizes a reason for the predicament of his or her own church.
The history of influence of Matt. 5:32 in Catholic church law makes clear that the reference to the biblical text alone does not solve the problems. On the contrary: if the Catholic looks in a merely Biblicist way to the order of Matt. 5:32, then he or she can be quite satisfied with the continuation of the status quo in his or her own church. But does not a tension exist between the realization of Matt. 5:32 in the Catholic church and the center of the proclamation of Jesus, the unconditional love of God for the human being? Then one also ask critically about Matt. 5:32 as a possible source o this tension. Already in Jesus’ own absolute rejection of divorce and marriage of divorced persons there was an element of potential lovelessness. On the other hand, the Protestant who suffers under the indifference of his or her church, feels the clear ecclesiastical order of Matthew and the absoluteness of Jesus’ demand of life-long monogamy as a positive challenge for thought. The immovable pillars of divine order which in the Catholic church become a burden and compulsion for many people keep alive in the Protestant churches the urgent necessary question whether there are not orienting pointers set by God which the Christian can in no way neglect.
Thus the question is how the love of God for humans and the absolute demand of the indissolubility of marriage are related to each other. With Jesus both are present but not combined in systematic reflection. One might take up R. Pesch’s key word of “free loyalty” and formulate as follows: The question is for both confessions how the faithfulness in marriage demanded by God remains free without becoming relative.

The interesting observation of Luz was the "actual adoption of the church to secular marriage law or to the secular (sinful!) reality of marriage" comment in his analysis of how protestants came to accept divorce and remarriage.

It might offer a parallel to what should happen with same-sex marriage in general church policies. And it seems that policies of tolerance can lead to theological allowances (as happened with divorce).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 5:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 3:55 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3967
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 83 of 103 (807753)
05-05-2017 9:35 AM


Reap what you sow

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Chiroptera, posted 05-05-2017 2:34 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 84 of 103 (807812)
05-05-2017 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Stile
05-05-2017 9:35 AM


Re: Reap what you sow
Hopefully she now will stick to applying for jobs her religion will allow her to do.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Stile, posted 05-05-2017 9:35 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 3:19 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 103 (807815)
05-05-2017 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Chiroptera
05-05-2017 2:34 PM


Re: Reap what you sow
I am unable to read through all that post of LNA's. Would somebody please boil it down to a few sentences for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Chiroptera, posted 05-05-2017 2:34 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 05-05-2017 3:23 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Chiroptera, posted 05-05-2017 6:33 PM Faith has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 103 (807816)
05-05-2017 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
05-05-2017 3:19 PM


Re: Reap what you sow
I am unable to read through all that post of LNA's. Would somebody please boil it down to a few sentences for me.

It's not over.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 3:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 103 (807820)
05-05-2017 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by LamarkNewAge
10-07-2016 6:24 PM


Re: Secular law and religious policy on divorce itself is an example to look at Faith
This is all about divorce?

Because Davis was divorced so many times or what?

Some of it seems to be about how divorce got liberalized by some churches? I would agree that that happened and that it is a violation of scripture.

But I still don't know what this has to do with the topic of gay marriage.

Note: Davis' divorces all occurred before her conversion to Christ. Her slate is therefore wiped clean of her previous sins of divorce.

But violations of the marriage contract are not the same thing as extending marriage to people who are not qualified for marriage. God's law is clear that marriage unites male and female, period.

So since I can't read all that post I'm guessing. Am I completely off topic or what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-07-2016 6:24 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 05-05-2017 4:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 96 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-26-2020 3:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 88 of 103 (807822)
05-05-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
05-05-2017 3:55 PM


Re: Secular law and religious policy on divorce itself is an example to look at Faith
Never thought of investigating rather than fantasizing?

The suit against her for refusing licenses will proceed unless the Supremes overrule the Appeals Court.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 3:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 8:05 PM JonF has responded

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 103 (807827)
05-05-2017 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
05-05-2017 3:19 PM


Re: Reap what you sow
I'm not sure myself. I think the point may be that just as certain Christian denominations have accommodated themselves to more liberal secular law allowing divorce and remarriage, so Christian denominations will probably accommodate themselves to changes in secular law regarding same sex marriage.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 3:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 8:09 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 103 (807829)
05-05-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by JonF
05-05-2017 4:53 PM


Re: Secular law and religious policy on divorce itself is an example to look at Faith
Investigating is not easy for me these days. My eyes are getting worse by the minute it seems. I already spend way too much time on the internet.

What's your guess about the outcome?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 05-05-2017 4:53 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by JonF, posted 05-05-2017 9:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020