Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
Originally posted by Gerald
Getting a divorce over hurt feelings.
How weak, to seek divorce on those grounds.
Somebody PLEASE help me! I agree with Gerald.
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
Philippians 2:15
When we attempt to bring Old Covenant Laws under the New Covenant it brings confusion.
RATS. I thought I had you. Good recovery.
Quote:
Originally posted by Freak
You wouldn't want us to offer animal sacrifices anymore under the New Covenant now would you?
No way!
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
Philippians 2:15
Originally posted by Freak
I'm laughing because the madness of the death penalty. Your questions further my belief that the death penalty is another Old Covenant Law that brought endless confusion.
I'm under the impression that you are a christian. Am I right on this?
If so, I think we can both agree that the Mosaic law is a terribly bad method of achieving righteousness. Consider Israel's history with it.
But, as a earthly system of restraining criminal behavior...that's a slightly different consideration. And that's the debate.
I think where you and I would disagree would be whether or not God intended it to also be an effective method of criminal justice. If so, then we can take it verbatim, sans symbolic laws, apply it and reasonably expect it to outperform anything man has been able to come up with. If not, then we can reasonable assume that the lesson intended to teach (that the law does not lead to righteousness) would make the Mosaic law's usefulness in criminal justice suspect.
What do you think?
Okay, I admit that athiesm is not a religion. At least, no more so than christianity.
Location: A spacious corner office overlooking the River Phlegethon
Rep Power: 50219
Atheist
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"Do what thou wilt" shall be the hole in the floor.
Reputation:
December 10th, 2003, 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
Well, divorce is a funny thing. I can't say there really is a good reason for one. No way, that is, to get a divorce and claim any measure of innocence in the matter.
In light of that, I would think that withholding sex as good a reason for divorce as any other.
What about this: you want children (that is, you want your genes to make it to the next generation, you don't want to adopt), and discover that your spouse is infertile.
Such a couple could present a reasonable case for dissolving their union...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."
And now you insult me! Does your cruelty know no bounds?
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
Philippians 2:15
Originally posted by Turbo
During Christ's earthly ministry, Israel was under Roman occupation and did not have the authority to execute criminals. I think their situation is very applicable to America today, since adultery has been de-criminalized.
So, under a biblical justice system: what, if any, circumstances would/could/should a divorce be granted?
Okay, I admit that athiesm is not a religion. At least, no more so than christianity.
Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
All I can think of is either a) the death penalty isn't necessarily the only penalty for adultery or b) "marital unfaithfulness" refers to something more than simple adultery.
I'm pretty sure capitol punishment for adultery is established cleary. Can anyone correct/confirm me on this?
I suppose "marital unfaithfulness" could mean more than simply adultery. Withholding "marital favors" perhaps?
I have wondered about this myself, especially since the adultery clause only appears in Matthew. My perception (limited as it is) is that adultery does not have to be the act of sex with another. Obviously, Christ was setting a new standard for marriage, and one under His convenant, and in that standard willful lust alone was enough to be considered unfaithful. If the withholding of sex from your husband or wife is secondary to a sexual obsession with another (or even with pornography), than that is grounds for divorce. How often are we capable of getting the person that we lust after? The lust is enough to constitute betrayal.
The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in You.
Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
So, a biblical system of criminal justice were in effect, including capitol punishment for adultery...
...what, if any, grounds would justify divorce?
Or, rather, how can you seek a divorce of adultery under a system of law where adultery is punishable by death? Assuming, of course, you want a divorce and not the execution of your unfaithful spouse.
You: Judge I want a divorce.
Judge: On what grounds?
You: Uh...er...
Okay, gonna give it one more shot before I give up...
Deuteronomy 24:1 - When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Okay, obviously divorce was allowed for even in Israel, under the Mosaic law. Apparently needing have nothing to do with adultery, unless "because he hath found some uncleanness in her" refers to something other than being fed up with your spouse.
Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And here Christ equates extra-marital lust with adultery. Of course, that's not something you can very well legislate against so it has little impact on criminal law.
Matthew 5:31 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Matthew 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Here's the difficulty for me. Does Christ mean adultery in the criminal sense or is this more a Matthew 5:28 "adultery...in his heart"?
On one hand - He said both these things as part of the Sermon on the Mount, so it could be argued that He was simply clarifying the principles involved. Also, Israel, while under biblical law, allowed for divorce for seemingly little reason at all.
On the other - I would find it difficult to imagine any society with a biblical law reading this and not equating divorce with adultery, a capitol offense.
On the third hand - Irregardless, Christ provides fornication as reasonable grounds for divorce. And yet, if I understand the concept of fornication correctly...isn't that adultery in the context of marriage? After all how can you commit fornication with someone you are married to? And how can you, if married, fornicate without committing adultery?
Okay, I admit that athiesm is not a religion. At least, no more so than christianity.
Originally posted by Lovejoy
Obviously, Christ was setting a new standard for marriage, and one under His convenant, and in that standard willful lust alone was enough to be considered unfaithful.
Because God looks upon the heart, and Jesus spoke of men committing adultery in their hearts, I have to agree with you. I also believe that if Christians would take this lesson to heart (pun intended) that they would be such a purifying influence upon the world that we would live on a planet which is much less focused upon sexual and juvenile undertones. I think I see a sermon in here, I'd better put this in my notes.
"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." -- Amos 3:7
Slogan/motto:
To whom much is given, much is required.
...or...
With great power comes great responsibility.
Reputation:
December 11th, 2003, 08:14 PM
Actually, Aimiel and Lovejoy, I think it would be more accurate to state that Jesus did not raise or change the standard, he clarified what the standard of righteousness was all along. Before Christ's time was it any less sinful to lust after someone, or to be angry at someone without cause?
I submit that the God's holy and righteous nature does not change. He is the standard.
Originally posted by Turbo
Actually, Aimiel and Lovejoy, I think it would be more accurate to state that Jesus did not raise or change the standard, he clarified what the standard of righteousness was all along. Before Christ's time was it any less sinful to lust after someone, or to be angry at someone without cause?
I submit that the God's holy and righteous nature does not change. He is the standard.
Amen. He is, but waited until Jesus' Ministry to reveal the fulness of His Plan, which included having His Law written upon our hearts. Until then, they had the written law, only. That's my take, anyway.
"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." -- Amos 3:7
Linear Mode
