Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook 

Rigid/legalistic doctrine concerning divorce and remarriage
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Re: Best writing I've found on the topic... Link
Tom Sterbens wrote:
David Instone-Brewer

https://www.divorce-remarriage.com/


There is something I do not care for in the wording of the first page-- making 'breaking vows' the grounds for divorce. The latter points could be seen as clarification of the first point, but someone who is inclined to get the wrong idea might just do so. He's talking about divorce, but people who see breaking vows as a reason for divorce may latch onto that.

Some people use 'breaking vows' as a euphemism for adultery, but it seems like the goalpost gets moved easily in our culture on this divorce and remarriage issue. In traditional ceremonies, there is a promise to 'cherish.' A wife might say, "I don't feel cherished. He didn't cherish me. The preacher said I can get a divorce for broken marriage vows." It may sound like a silly thing, but people like to justify themselves getting out of difficult situations. The passages on abandonment in the situation of marriage to an unbeliever can be expanded to 'he/she abandoned me a long time ago in his/her heart.'

There are a lot of people in marriages where there is fighting and arguing and it is easy for either party to think of something that violates the marriage vows, especially if the make up their own vows and vow to always leave a fresh cut rose on the pillow and vow to always make the other a home cooked breakfast on the weekend. A lot of these marriages can be saved. Having a look at the 'abuse wheel' type models on line, which includes a wide variety of behaviors that are not physical abuse, there are a lot of behaviors that one could attribute to the other as 'abusive' that would be common in a salvagable marriage where the relationship degenerates into arguing and ill will between the couple, a situation that can be fixed by learning to love and forgive and communicate. If the couple are rightly marriage and both are Christians and have the Spirit of God in them, there is grace for healing in such situations.

And technically, those who use the Book of Common prayer ceremony that I've heard do not 'vow' as in swear an oath, but agree to do something in a solemn situation. I believe the RCC marriage ceremonies use the word 'swear'.


The Bible does not teach that marriage is based on 'vows.' That is part of our culture. The pagan Romans used to have wedding where the couple spoke some words in front of a priest. The bride gave her consent to take her husbands name, "Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia' for example. Before that, Roman girls had a feminine form of their father's name. Tulius' two daughters would be Tullia Major and Tullia Minor.

The bride would wear a ring on her ring finger. The Romans would have the husband carry the bride off as if stealing her while her family chased them, imitating the carrying away of the Sabine women in early Roman history/legend.

Fast forward several hundred years into the 'AD' time period and you have a church elder/priest instead of the pagan priest performing the ceremony. The bride and groom speak 'vows' to each other. Some scriptures are put into the ceremony.

Old Testament marriages, at least to a virgin, involved the groom or his family paying a bride price to the bride's family. Then it was the custom to have a party. In the first century, there was a wedding procession where the groom's party would apparently collect the bride's party. The covenant was made with the bride price prior to the husband coming together after the party.

Boaz took the widow Ruth by agreeing to take her as a wife before witnesses, the elders of the city, while redeeming land from a near kinsman.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11473
9/8/20 9:37 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Truth: If someone really WANTS to get divorced, they'll find a justification Aaron Scott
I have never heard of anyone who got a divorce "just because." Now, it may SEEM that way to us, but there is usually more to the story.

I knew of one woman who, after 25 or so years of marriage--and a marriage that was looked upon by all as a really good one--wanted something else. She dredged up things from EARLY in the marriage, as though she had carried these offenses with her all that time.

Well, yes, she carried them in her memory, but her desire to divorce weaponized these memories into justifications for divorce.

ALL of us who are married have had our feelings hurt a few times, I imagine, by our spouse...and vice versa. But most of these do not rise to the level of any sort of justification for leaving. In my case, of course, I have found that if I honk the horn when my wife walks in front of the car to get in, I am going to suffer domestic abuse in the form of being smacked--and smacked hard!--on my arm or the nearest clear shot she has--and I didn't even touch her!

But I dare say that if my wife every wanted to divorce me, she might even find that as part of her list of "causes." That is, if you really want a divorce, you'll figure out out a way to make it right with your conscience.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5560
9/8/20 10:32 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Link
The way you present it, it sounds like she did not have a strong reason to get divorce, but just re-wrote the story of her marriage when she went through a time of frustration.

We don't have the social sanctions and constraints against divorce that we used to. A disproportionate number of women, upwards of 60% file the no-fault type divorces. The state creates a subsidy for women who choose divorce if they have children by giving most of the children over to women and extracting child support from men in many cases. Still, divorce is a value-destroying proposition, financially, since the money produced goes to support two residences instead of one. But women can often get this subsidy from their husbands.

And then there seems to be less teaching against divorce in churches that their used to be, with pastors and church people moving the goal post. So many church-goers and even pastors are divorced that many people seem to think it is okay, and you hear Christians discuss divorce with no mention of the words of Christ on the subject. Where there is no revelation, the people cast of restraint.

Sexual immorality is widespread, and some of these cases may involve adultery that neither partner wants to publicized. The one who is cheated on may feel ashamed by it also-- foolish for not suspecting or somehow inadequate that their partner would choose to do such a thing. I am not saying such thoughts are well-founded, but these are reactions people may have.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11473
9/8/20 1:47 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Death Before Dishonor...or Divorce! Link
Aaron Scott wrote:

In a nutshell, some believe that ONLY IF the man commits adultery is the woman free to divorce (and some foolish folks don't even believe that). That is, only if he does the ONE THING Jesus spoke of that justified divorce. But do we believe that Jesus was speaking exhaustively?


Can you show us in the scripture where it teaches that?

Quote:

What about the wife of the BTK killer? She and her family had NO IDEA this man was traveling around killing people. He has a life sentence...does she get one too because she didn't have the discernment to know this was a serial killer in the making?

I say no. Something is wrong when we think that it is somehow BETTER for a woman to take an ax to her husband so she can remarry a better person...then for her to divorce her husband and remarry.


This is a strawman. No one is saying it is okay to kill your husband or wife so you can remarry. How many men or women who did this do you know in church? If they get caught, they go off to jail. If they haven't been caught, that is probably because they didn't tell anyone and you don't know. How many people do you know whose spouse was murdered?
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11473
9/8/20 1:50 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Carolyn Smith wrote:

However, I would consider verbal abuse from a narcissistic spouse in which the wife is constantly verbally attacked, talked down to, made to feel less than human or like they are crazy (gaslighting) as something the woman should get away from unless God has told her to stay.


There were Christians married to pagans and/or unbelieving Jews that Paul encouraged to stay married. Peter told wives to submit to husbands who do not obey the word. Narcisism wasn't mentioned in the 'exception clause' in Matthew 19, either.

Especially if the narcissistic verbally attacking spouse is a Christian, how about confronting that person about their treatment of their partner rather than jumping to telling the other spouse to get out? I think this works both ways. It's not always the man who behaves like that. Do you think it is okay for a man to leave his wife if she is constantly putting him down?
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11473
9/9/20 8:52 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Link, you are showing a tremendous lack of knowledge about the consequences of severe emotional abuse. Whenever someone tries to explain it to you, you trivialize it to mean something like name-calling. It's clear you are completely and totally ignorant about how bad and even deadly severe emotional abuse can be. This is especially clear in your suggestion that an abusive narcissistic spouse simply "be confronted".

No one in this thread is talking about divorce at the first sign of any kind of unpleasant treatment. That is a straw man that you have constructed. What other posters in this thread are talking about is what should be done when all avenues have been exhausted, when abusive spouses have been confronted by their victims, by pastors, by friends, and have refused to engage in any kind of counselling or treatment and have refused to change.

I am sure this has not been your intent, as I know you are a kind hearted person, but your posts in this thread have been dismissive and cruel. I sincerely hope this is just a function of you approaching the topic academically and dispassionately in this thread, and that if you ever had an opportunity to counsel or talk with a victim of abuse that you would approach the issue in a profoundly, profoundly different way.

I mean you absolutely no offense with this post, and I respect you and your pursuit for what it means to be obedient to Christ's commands even in suffering. But respectfully, the dismissive and callous tone of your posts greatly diminishes any point you are endeavoring to make.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13506
9/9/20 9:22 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
I would also note, respectfully, that one hallmark of legalism is the desire to establish clear black and white rules out of fear that if any grace is permitted, it could be abused by people with sinful intentions.

That has been a consistent part of this thread as well.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13506
9/9/20 9:32 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
And just to be clear -- yes, most (almost all) marriages with problems or issues that might cause a partner to want to divorce can be saved and healed through counselling and hard work.

I am in a Christian marriage and cannot imagine any situation in which it would be permissible for me to divorce my wife. In 13 years of marriage we have had struggles and challenges and have been to counseling to work through them. I am absolutely not promoting any kind of attitude of permissibility toward divorce, and I cannot fathom a reason why two genuine believers could not overcome a problem by God's grace, nor can I imagine a reason why divorce would be allowable for two people who are both genuine believers.

But not every marriage is like that. Not every professing believer is genuine, and some spouses don't even bother with the profession. There are wicked, cruel, and evil people of both genders who enjoy hurting others. This is a small, small minority of marriages to be sure, but they exist and their victims are real, and what they experience should not be trivialized or ignored.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13506
9/9/20 9:46 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Response to Link... Aaron Scott
Link wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:

In a nutshell, some believe that ONLY IF the man commits adultery is the woman free to divorce (and some foolish folks don't even believe that). That is, only if he does the ONE THING Jesus spoke of that justified divorce. But do we believe that Jesus was speaking exhaustively?


Can you show us in the scripture where it teaches that?

Can you elaborate on what particular point of the above you are questioning?

If you are questioning whether adultery/fornication (i.e., sexual impurity) is justifiable, Jesus indicates it by saying, "save for the cause of fornication...."

We KNOW that Jesus did not speak exhaustively in the written scriptures. In one place, He said He had many things to tell them, but they would have to wait until the Holy Ghost came. In another place, John says that if all that Jesus did were to have been recorded, he supposed the earth would not contain the books. And, after the Resurrection, during those 40 days, we have only a smattering of comments from Jesus. Did He say nothing else?

As for utterly stupidity of acting like even adultery is not justification for divorce, well, I will have to rely on your good sense. Now, I am not saying that one MUST divorce. If they can forgive and move on, great. But I am saying that it is justifiable grounds for divorce AND remarriage. There are some "teachers" that claim that now that we are under "grace," we shouldn't divorce for ANY reason. Even if one's spouse kills the children? Even if there is flagrant and repeated cases of adultery? Again, you don't HAVE to divorce, but to act like it would be wrong is someone who absolutely has NOTHING to say to me, because they don't know enough about God to make it worth our while to even hear them.




Quote:

What about the wife of the BTK killer? She and her family had NO IDEA this man was traveling around killing people. He has a life sentence...does she get one too because she didn't have the discernment to know this was a serial killer in the making?

I say no. Something is wrong when we think that it is somehow BETTER for a woman to take an ax to her husband so she can remarry a better person...then for her to divorce her husband and remarry.


This is a strawman. No one is saying it is okay to kill your husband or wife so you can remarry. How many men or women who did this do you know in church? If they get caught, they go off to jail. If they haven't been caught, that is probably because they didn't tell anyone and you don't know. How many people do you know whose spouse was murdered?

Link, I don't believe you got my drift. I am not saying that one spouse should kill the other! I am saying that it is EASIER to be forgiven that--at least in some churches and by some people--especially if they remarry!--than it is to be forgiven for murder.

OF COURSE one spouse shouldn't kill the other! It was a point that was raised to show that if someone believes that ONLY adultery justifies divorce (and presumably, remarriage), then, indeed, a wife whose husband is a violent alcoholic, abuses the children, steals from her, etc., BUT DOESN'T COMMIT ADULTERY!, should kill him, since that is the ONE WAY she can get him out of her life and, apparently, still get right with God.










Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5560
9/9/20 10:55 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Carolyn Smith
Dave Dorsey wrote:
And just to be clear -- yes, most (almost all) marriages with problems or issues that might cause a partner to want to divorce can be saved and healed through counselling and hard work.

I am in a Christian marriage and cannot imagine any situation in which it would be permissible for me to divorce my wife. In 13 years of marriage we have had struggles and challenges and have been to counseling to work through them. I am absolutely not promoting any kind of attitude of permissibility toward divorce, and I cannot fathom a reason why two genuine believers could not overcome a problem by God's grace, nor can I imagine a reason why divorce would be allowable for two people who are both genuine believers.

But not every marriage is like that. Not every professing believer is genuine, and some spouses don't even bother with the profession. There are wicked, cruel, and evil people of both genders who enjoy hurting others. This is a small, small minority of marriages to be sure, but they exist and their victims are real, and what they experience should not be trivialized or ignored.


Science tells us that personalities are formed very young in life. It is very hard for a narcissistic person to change. I'm sure it can be done through the grace of God, but part of the narcissism is that they pretty much think they are right about everything and often, they will not accept any such criticism that suggests they need change. It is very unlikely that a narcissistic person will accept the reality of this character flaw and seek change, apart from the grace of God.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5617
9/9/20 12:50 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Aaron Scott,

I was wanting you to quote the whole verse:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Moses also allowed polygamy. What would the law of Moses required for a married man to do if he had taken an unbetrothed virgin's virginity? How would Jesus' audience have interpreted his remarks? This wasn't a 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander" culture... or set of laws for that matter."
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11473
9/9/20 1:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link...I still am not following Aaron Scott
Friend, I honestly don't know the point you are trying to get at. It may be a very good one, but until I understand, I cannot respond appropriately.

Please revise so I can understand. Thank you, friend.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5560
9/10/20 8:55 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Link...I still am not following Link
Aaron Scott wrote:
Friend, I honestly don't know the point you are trying to get at. It may be a very good one, but until I understand, I cannot respond appropriately.

Please revise so I can understand. Thank you, friend.


What I am saying is the verse in question says that if a husband puts away his wife and marries another, except it be for fornication (or not addressing the issue of fornication, depending on how you interpret it), and marries another, he commits adultery. Where does it say that a woman may divorce her husband for adultery and remarry? The law of Moses that He was commenting on made no provision for women to divorce men.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11473
9/10/20 3:39 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Truth: If someone really WANTS to get divorced, they'll find a justification FLRon
Aaron Scott wrote:
I have never heard of anyone who got a divorce "just because." Now, it may SEEM that way to us, but there is usually more to the story.

I knew of one woman who, after 25 or so years of marriage--and a marriage that was looked upon by all as a really good one--wanted something else. She dredged up things from EARLY in the marriage, as though she had carried these offenses with her all that time.

Well, yes, she carried them in her memory, but her desire to divorce weaponized these memories into justifications for divorce.

ALL of us who are married have had our feelings hurt a few times, I imagine, by our spouse...and vice versa. But most of these do not rise to the level of any sort of justification for leaving. In my case, of course, I have found that if I honk the horn when my wife walks in front of the car to get in, I am going to suffer domestic abuse in the form of being smacked--and smacked hard!--on my arm or the nearest clear shot she has--and I didn't even touch her!

But I dare say that if my wife every wanted to divorce me, she might even find that as part of her list of "causes." That is, if you really want a divorce, you'll figure out out a way to make it right with your conscience.


The court system today makes it very easy for a divorce to occur. It's simple actually. All one party has to do is cite "irreconcilable differences" as the grounds for divorce. It is simply not true that in today's world there must be a clear-cut reason for divorce. It no longer works that way.

I know this because I have lived this hellish nightmare. I came home from work one day to have my wife tell me she no longer wanted to be married. No reason except for" I just don't want to be married". No amount of reasoning or counseling would change her mind. I fought it as long as I legally could. In the end, the judge said the divorce was granted on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. When I protested that we never had an argument let alone ask for divorce, the judge said " sir, your wife no longer wishes to be married to you. Divorce granted".

This is what the Church refuses to acknowledge. Society does not follow Biblical mandates for living as it once did. To hold someone to a Biblical mandate only works when EVERY PERSON is held to the same standard.

I know too many ministers who have been kicked to the curb even though they were not the offending party in the divorce, all because the legal system provides a convenient excuse for the divorce.

Sadly, those who have endured these "no fault divorces" must wear the scarlet letter of failure for the rest of their days, while the Church marches on, willingly ignorant of the fact that we're not in Kansas any more.
_________________
“No man is greater than his prayer life”.
Leonard Ravenhill
Friendly Face
Posts: 475
9/10/20 4:05 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Link...I still am not following Aaron Scott
Link wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:
Friend, I honestly don't know the point you are trying to get at. It may be a very good one, but until I understand, I cannot respond appropriately.

Please revise so I can understand. Thank you, friend.


What I am saying is the verse in question says that if a husband puts away his wife and marries another, except it be for fornication (or not addressing the issue of fornication, depending on how you interpret it), and marries another, he commits adultery. Where does it say that a woman may divorce her husband for adultery and remarry? The law of Moses that He was commenting on made no provision for women to divorce men.



Well, the good news is that AT LEAST the woman gets to partake in the sin of adultery if she remarries! We wouldn't want to leave her out just because she's a woman.

I do not know the particulars of Jewish Law about such things, but understand that if you start playing that too-literal game, you wind up with things like this:

A woman doesn't have to live holy. Why? Because "without holiness no MAN shall see the Lord."

When Jesus said, "See thou tell no MAN," do you suppose He was saying it was fine to tell women?

When they said, "Never MAN spake like this man," do you think they meant that there might have been women that did speak like that?

Of course, I know you don't see it this way, but the point remains, I think. Consider the rank EVIL that would permitted if a man could freely commit adultery, but his wife HAVE to stay with him--or at least not divorce and remarry). What a great deal! A do as I say, not as I do scenario.

Now, again, if a man WANTS to stay with a wife who is impure, that's fine. Rahah was certainly not bride in white. But so far as I'm concerned, if EITHER husband or wife commit adultery, then it is acceptable for the other to divorce and remarry. (And, as my initial post points out, I believe there are other reasons that justify divorce and remarriage.)
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5560
9/11/20 8:59 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post This right here trumped every argument and caseyleejones
Dave Dorsey wrote:
I would also note, respectfully, that one hallmark of legalism is the desire to establish clear black and white rules out of fear that if any grace is permitted, it could be abused by people with sinful intentions.

That has been a consistent part of this thread as well.


and post thus far and worth its own thread.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11631
9/12/20 8:51 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: This right here trumped every argument and Link
caseyleejones wrote:
Dave Dorsey wrote:
I would also note, respectfully, that one hallmark of legalism is the desire to establish clear black and white rules out of fear that if any grace is permitted, it could be abused by people with sinful intentions.

That has been a consistent part of this thread as well.


and post thus far and worth its own thread.


That quote did not stand out to me when I read it like it did to you.

I just wonder what the definition of 'grace' used here is, because I'm not seeing that as the way 'grace' is used in scripture. We are saved by grace. We don't deserve it. We are saved because God has favor on us, we believe and are justified through Christ.

God's grace works in us through spiritual gifts. It reigns in us and allows us to overcome sin.

I don't see grace used as just 'cutting someone some slack'.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11473
9/12/20 10:03 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Link...I still am not following Link
Aaron Scott wrote:

Of course, I know you don't see it this way, but the point remains, I think. Consider the rank EVIL that would permitted if a man could freely commit adultery, but his wife HAVE to stay with him--or at least not divorce and remarry). What a great deal! A do as I say, not as I do scenario.


This is hypothetical, but let's suppose there were a denomination or just one pastor who would advise a wife in this situation that she could divorce if she chose to, but not remarry citing these verses:

Quote:

Mark 10
11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (NKJV)

Mark 5
31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except]sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. (NKJV)

Romans 7
7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. (NKJV)


Is that 'evil' for her church to believe she can't remarry? Why is it evil not to remarry after a divorce?

Many years ago, I worked for an institution overseas that opened a college, and I taught English there, though I just had a bachelors. They also gave me an American Culture class to teach. I learned some things about my own culture from reading the textbook. It said that unlike in some other cultures, Americans thought marriage existed to make two people happy, and if they weren't happy with it, they would get a divorce and marry someone else." That is so true of our culture.

If you disagree with those who teach against remarriage after divorce, whether male or female, that's is one thing, but why would you call it evil? Is it because you think of marriage as something designed to make people happy and that it is evil to deprive people of their pursuit of happiness?
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11473
9/12/20 10:18 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: This right here trumped every argument and Dave Dorsey
Link wrote:
That quote did not stand out to me when I read it like it did to you.

I just wonder what the definition of 'grace' used here is, because I'm not seeing that as the way 'grace' is used in scripture. We are saved by grace. We don't deserve it. We are saved because God has favor on us, we believe and are justified through Christ.

God's grace works in us through spiritual gifts. It reigns in us and allows us to overcome sin.

I don't see grace used as just 'cutting someone some slack'.

I'm not going to continue engaging with you on this topic because it does not seem like a fruitful use of time. You do not seem willing to consider any position except your own.

I will clarify this however. Multiple posters have presented you with scenarios where people were severely abused or wickedly and sinfully victimized in ways other than adultery. In response, you repeatedly rejected the suggestion that the Bible afforded any recourse to these people, in most cases saying something along the lines if "if that were the case, someone could call name-calling abuse" or similar.

You want a black and white line here -- one that is unsupported by Scripture when taken in its full counsel and read properly through a hermeneutic informed by the entirety of the canon -- and in defense of that, you raise the possibility that if a severely abused spouse was permitted to exit his or her marriage, someone who is not a victim but just wants out might use the same excuse.

I hope that clarifies it for you.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13506
9/12/20 3:23 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
And if I recall correctly, this is the same kind of narrow hermeneutical approach you've used to argue on this forum that American chattel slavery maybe wasn't opposed to Scripture (despite God's freeing of similar types of slaves being literally the basis of redemptive revelation in the earth).

Like I said above, I truly hope this is all just academic for you. I hope you're kind of trying to argue extreme points just for the sake of doing so, and I do think there's value to that if you are. But if this is really how you view things, man, I don't know what to tell you
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13506
9/12/20 3:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.