another_poster

So apostle Paul is following a different religion then? Paul does condone divorce for a different reason. Here is a interesting question. What is adultery? We know Israel committed adultery without a sexual act. So adultery is not neccesarily sexual. Since the root word can be translated in a non-sexual way then the question needs to be asked

I agree with LadyC there is no contradiction there. One can honour parents (or others) but love God more.

Jesus washing his disciples feet showed that one was to be a servant to others. It isn't just when you are asked to do the odd thing here and there. I also noticed you did not address the points I specifically asked you to address. God said this is the way it is going to be and people argued and God changed his mind. That is not the you must do whatever your told picture that you paint. but it doesn't actually say she must obey everything he says. He can still rule without her obeying everything. Just like governments rule without everyone obeying all the time. I would call it a sin to stay in an abusive situation. Hardly taking care of the temple is it. Then by all means read the description that was provided and start the discussion from that. Is that really so hard??? It has been explained and while you may not agree it is wrong to claim it has not been explained. Well perhaps you could point out the post number where you explain why a verse appears in the KJV that should not be there according to you. Um no this is not correct for all. As you yourself proved. You pointed out that in cases of adultery it is permitted. So it isn't neccesarily till death do us part. However if you mean the actual vows we make then you are still wrong as those words are not required in vows. Some include them but some do not.

Yes but have you addressed the factors involved in a person becoming a slave that do not apply to a marriage and why taking the principle being taught and applying it to a marriage even more so because they are one flesh is not reasonable. To start lets look at why people became slaves generally. It was because they owed a debt that they could not repay. So entering slavery was their way of repaying the debt. Of course slaves were to be set free after a certain amount of time. So how has a slave repaid their debt if they take off? They haven't so what would they need to do if they have a debt they can't pay to that person? They would need to enter into slavery to the very same master they ran away from one minute ago. Alternatively they could be thrown into jail until they repay their debt. Of course when in jail it was impossible to earn any money to repay your debt so you would never get out of jail. So how is that applicable to a marriage situation? Did you actually have a comment on what InChrist said about constructive desertion? Since Sevenseas said they agree with InChrist then itseems reasonable to me that would be a good starting point. I can't recall you having responded to that bit of InChrists post. Please note I have only read to post #198. If the answer has followed then I will see it later and apologise for not taking that into consideration.

Seriously do people not realise this is a forum????? Go to any forum you like and you will see that it is just like a group conversation. people make comments and occasionly someone will stay quiet then suddenly respond to something even though that conversation has been going on for a little while already. It is acceptable in those situations for a person to do that. Likewise on a forum it should be ok to do that. If you want a private conversation there are ways to do that. Do you really want me to repost an identical post just so I can make a comment in the conversation? Surely that is a waste. The truth does not offend me. However just because you believe something to be true does not make it the truth. Where does it say a wife must obey her husband? Do not use the wives submit to your husband as evidence unless you take into consideration that the bible commands the husband to submit to his wife as well. I would also expect you to address situations where people argued with God such as Elijah or Elisha (can't remember which off hand) who wanted blessing and was told if he saw the other taken up they would get the blessing. Also Jacob wrestling with an angel. When God was going to destroy a city and was asked but what if you find 100 righteouss in the city? God never condemned these people for arguing and saying in some cases No I won't accept that. Verbal abuse has led to suicide in many cases. However because there are no bruises people think it is not a problem. Verbal abuse is clearly a sin and against the bible just like physical abuse is. So why would you agree to separation in one but not the other? Note abuse is repeated continuous so please don't respond as if I am talking about a one off comment.

Well if you can only read what is said then by all means read what was written. When a poster says I was not making a comparison but however making this point then why do you insist on calling it a comparison? Yes what you quoted was said. However a clarification was made which explained what they were doing. Since a third poster saw exactly what they were doing and gave examples from the bible where the same thing was done. So it is not like I'm the only one saying this. If I was the only one I would actually think Gee maybe I've got this wrong. Also since a third poster explained what faith please god(FPG) was doing and FPG said yes thats what I was doing then clearly it is wrong for people to keep insisting that FPG is saying a husband/wife relationship is like a slave/master relationship. So obviously I have no issue with the original question and as you correctly pointed out I also had an issue with it. However since the clarification was made then there is no longer cause for complaints. However to continue making a claim that does not in any way acknowledge the clarification is a false claim. As for getting back to the topic that is what I have wanted. However how useful would it be in that endeavour if I insisted everyone says what their favourite colour is before continuing? Not useful at all. Likewise it is not useful for staying on topic when incorrect statements are made. Not sure why you want my opinion but it has not changed since I replied in post #27 to your question about abuse in post #20. My reply is that there is no requirement for a person being abused to stay with their spouse. I also said I did not know if divorce was ok in that situation. However separating is certainly an option and a wise one. I have seen what InChrist has written. I find it interesting but not convincing enough to take a firm position.

Well if you don't want to go down that path then you need to respect that not everyone agrees with you and that they have their view. If you want to treat others as automatically wrong then don't expect them not to be upset about it or take issue with it. It is simple I wonder if you realise how offensive this post comes across as. What is meant by bitter? To embitter. To not irritate. To not make bitter. Do you think a person being beaten by the spouse would not be bitter? Having friends who have been beaten by their spouse I can assure you bitterness is there as a result.

You still don't get it though. It is not a comparison. That is the bit your missing and you keep calling it that. I said it was not a valid comparison but after it was clarified what they meant and they said it was not a comparison one should not keep calling it that as it is misrepresenting the person. That it is continued means it is bordering on bearing false witness. I am not the only person who understand what faith pleases god was doing. Another person made it clearer than I did and still you insist on saying faith please god was saying a marriage is like a slave/master relationship when that is simply not true. and it also calls us slaves. you asked where does the bible do that and I answered. If you did not give the full question earlier then that is not my fault. You just need to say what I meant was and then explain yourself properly. I have however answered the question you asked as it was written. Did you mean to limit it to a particular area? I understand you are talking about another persons posts. However you need to understand two things. 1. If I see a person making false claims about what another person has said I will speak up 2. The nature of forums is that people make posts and others respond. They can respond to any post unless there is a specific rule that says they are not allowed to. It is like a conversation with several people.

Worth noting the passage about the husband being won over is talking about a unbelieving husband not a believer who is doing the wrong thing. Considering appearances of words translated into put away and divorce are different to begin with and other usage of those terms I just can't see them being the same. When a word is always translated one way and then suddenly in another place it is translated a different way that time only one should ask questions. If they always translate it one way why suddenly use different words? I'm not firm enough in view to form a belief around this but there is certainly enough evidence to ask questions. Of course if I was the only one who thought this then I would think maybe I'm wrong however I am certainlt not the only one.

Sorry but once again you are not reading but rather assuming people are saying what you want to argue against. At no point in time did anyone make any comparison. So stop repeating that false accusation please. It has been explained by three people what was being done and yet you still repeat this accusation. Do you not think that if others understand what Faith Pleases God was saying then perhaps you might be wrong in your understanding? Granted it wasn't clear at first. Look at my response. I understand what he was saying but still disagree. So understanding what is being said doesn't mean one has to agree. We are either slaves of righteousness or slaves of sin. So no matter what we are slaves. Romans 6. Sure that is a different type of slave to the passage where faith please god is getting the principle from.

When there are unknowns it is unwise to build a solid doctrine on that belief with unknown factors. You choose to see no contradiction but base that on what? Nothing. Lets deal with what is known as you suggested. We know Jesus said there is only one reason for divorce. What we know is that Paul then says well actually there is a bit more which is not in any way indicated in what Jesus said. Yet for some reason you want to think Paul is just clarifying what Jesus said! Sorry just does not add up. So it comes back to what I said which is that it isn't as simple as you suggest.

Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think. Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread. Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it. Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known. but that is what you are doing. Jesus said there was only one reason for divorce which is adultery. You have decided that since Paul said there was another reason then he is just expanding on what Jesus said! Sorry but no you can not read that into it. As I said it is not as clear as you are making out. You also have not addressed the other question. The very real argument about there being a difference between putting away and divorce. I'm saying scripture is not as clear as one suggests. Others have posted things that are known that have not been addressed and affect this topic. If correct then people need to examine their view. You are essentially approaching this with a view in mind and then reading scripture rather than reading scripture and forming your view. with all due respect you should not be telling people to read back through the thread to find things if you are not willing to do so. No you have not addressed it but it is repeated here in this post anyway. I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known. To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before). Also you have asked many questions , how am I supposed to know which one is not answered and which one you actually mean? I have many people to answer here and write and read and research, I just do not have the time that I can go all the way back and reread everything and then guess on top of it, when it is of no great time consuming deal for you to just rewrite your question to me, as you now did, thanks. To answer that question you could have just done a quick word study yourself (blueletterbible): "To put away" - apolyō Meanings: To set free, release, to let go, dismiss and it is used here for the meaning of divorce. It is the term the KJV uses to describe divorce in these cases you were questioning, so it's the same meaning. As I said if you are going to tell others to go back to find stuff then you should not have a problem with others telling you the same thing. Essentially I am asking you to apply the same standards to yourself that you expect of others. Put away and divorce are not the same. Also looking at context such as cultural situations it was practice for men to not actually divorce their partners but ignore them and not support them as required. There was words used in original languages that translated as divorce so why use a different word that is not clear in its meaning if divorce is meant? The question really is not that easily answered.

No worries. Hopefully it is understood. Of course as I said I disagree with your conclusion because of the other factors that I don't feel you have considered in that scenario. There have been some scriptures given that could suggest otherwise although are not clear. However your position still relies on assuming the debate over put away vs divorce has been resolved. I have raised that several times and only one person has responded to it. There is what I believe to be credible evidence that word was wrongly translated as divorce and instead should have been put away which was a practice where a man would basically ignore his wife and refuse to give her a certificate of divorcement which means she could not go back to her parents and would not be having her needs met as the husband is required while the husband goes and gets himself a new wife. It is interesting also that Jesus says there is only one reason for divorce but as you say there are two reasons given. So is Jesus wrong? Or is Paul wrong? The very act of Paul giving another reason contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus said except for this ONE reason. I myself find myself in the category Paul mentioned. Mind you I have no desire to remarry because a part of me will always love my ex wife. Also since things did not work out when I discussed things and compromised on some things (not important things and not my beliefs) then next time I would approach marriage with a my way or the highway approach which simply would not work so no point in trying. Of course legally I am not divorced because I have no desire to be the one to fork out the court fees to process the paperwork. If she wants to remarry then she can pay for that. So I can't actually remarry even if I wanted to!

Good point Seven. "We must not seek to bind the consciences of other Believers with the private convictions that arise out of our personal walk with God. Even if you believe God has led you in developing those convictions, you still must not elevate them to the level of spiritual principles for everyone else to follow." - Jerry Bridges actually I think Seven has misunderstood what faith pleases God was saying. She was not saying they are the same kind of relationship. She clearly explained her view. For seven to then ask if she is making the comparison again is to not have read properly what she said. I disagree with faith pleases God's understanding but I do not wish to see her misrepresented. say what??? +1 to "say what" comment. Whatever you were trying to communicate was lost in translation Another Poster... Lol. If that is the case then I've misunderstood what Faith Pleases God was saying too. I don't think he was being misrepresented here. Faith Pleases God was comparing masters/slaves to husbands/wives. The Bible never makes that comparison. It's really that simple. Faith Pleases God is a guy btw. God bless, GE No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused. husband and wife are on flesh. Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together. That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar.

Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think. Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread. Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it. Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known. but that is what you are doing. Jesus said there was only one reason for divorce which is adultery. You have decided that since Paul said there was another reason then he is just expanding on what Jesus said! Sorry but no you can not read that into it. As I said it is not as clear as you are making out. You also have not addressed the other question. The very real argument about there being a difference between putting away and divorce. I'm saying scripture is not as clear as one suggests. Others have posted things that are known that have not been addressed and affect this topic. If correct then people need to examine their view. You are essentially approaching this with a view in mind and then reading scripture rather than reading scripture and forming your view. with all due respect you should not be telling people to read back through the thread to find things if you are not willing to do so. No you have not addressed it but it is repeated here in this post anyway.

No we do not have to support anyone or anything that is against the Bible. I do not see how a person who is a Christian can support that type of choice. We as believers need to fight against this murder of the unborn. If you support that person that supports abortion that you are actually supporting abortion. well just as well the bible does not forbid allowing people to make their own choices. That is not in any way condoning the choice. There is a difference.

Well it would not be the first time it happened. It has happened a number of times with babies that are born and then allowed to starve to death by court order.

got a source for that claim or is it a case of 79.9% of statistics are made up on the spot? Independent source please not just some unsourced claim from a group with an agenda.

Good point Seven. "We must not seek to bind the consciences of other Believers with the private convictions that arise out of our personal walk with God. Even if you believe God has led you in developing those convictions, you still must not elevate them to the level of spiritual principles for everyone else to follow." - Jerry Bridges actually I think Seven has misunderstood what faith pleases God was saying. She was not saying they are the same kind of relationship. She clearly explained her view. For seven to then ask if she is making the comparison again is to not have read properly what she said. I disagree with faith pleases God's understanding but I do not wish to see her misrepresented.

I was thinking earlier today that I should ask about why you have come to that conclusion. Then I come here to find that you have! So thanks it is much appreciated. I don't agree because as I said earlier the reasons for being in those situations in the first place are different. See a slave is there because they owe a debt. They become a slave because they can't pay. So if they leave before their time is up then they have not paid their debt and they have to go straight back into slavery to that very person. There is no obligation in marriage that causes them to be there is the first place.

Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think. Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread. Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question

But where are you getting that view from? A slave/master relationship is very different to a wife/husband relationship. Since they are different then one can not apply the same answer. What must also be remembered is that slaves were set free in the end unless they chose not to be in which case they voluntarily became slaves for life. People also became slaves because they had a debt they could not pay. Women did not become wives because they could not pay a debt. I will explain what you are doing using a maths sum. You see a statement saying 6 times 7 equals 56 then assume 6 plus 7 also equals 56. Mutual submission as instructed by the bible for a marriage is not like a slave/master relationship where one must obey whatever they are told. Although perhaps we should consider the way most (if not all) denominations interpret adultery there is probably not a single married person who has not committed adultery.

No I did not call you a liar although I can in hindsight see how it could be understood that way. I was simply pointing out that if that was what you were doing then it is serious. As to the article you linked what did Lahaye's spokesperson say? There is the statement I was talking about. The statement says it is not about money.

Yeah I get that the answer doesn't change but you seem to have misunderstood what I said. If an answer is given to a specific question then the answer is only the answer for that specific question not for a different question. Also I would have thought you would have had a view or some input on the put away vs divorce discussion.

Follow scripture above all else is your aim? Great! So when scripture says to speak the truth in love how have you demonstrated that here? To be honest I can not see how you have done that. By all means try and talk a person out of divorce if you can but that statement also does not reflect reality. Sometimes it just is not an option. The choice is not always with the individual. One can fight for their family but if the other person says don't care then there is nothing that can be done. The old life is simple philosophy. There are many other factors you have not addressed here in regards to domestic violence. It really is not as simple as you think and that is all before one even gets to court! and the husband is supposed to be submissive as well as per biblical instruction and also put his wife's desires above his own. This is not actually a valid question because they are not the only two options.